Literature DB >> 27067781

Adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, and invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma--analysis of interobserver agreement, survival, radiographic characteristics, and gross pathology in 296 nodules.

Jennifer M Boland1, Adam T Froemming2, Jason A Wampfler3, Fabien Maldonado4, Tobias Peikert4, Courtney Hyland5, Mariza de Andrade3, Marie Christine Aubry5, Ping Yang6, Eunhee S Yi5.   

Abstract

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society and 2015 World Health Organization classifications of lung adenocarcinoma recommend designating tumors showing entirely lepidic growth as adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and lepidic tumors with invasion less than or equal to 5 mm as minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), both of which have superior outcome to conventional invasive adenocarcinoma (IA). Data on interobserver variability within this classification are limited, and further validation of the superior survival of AIS and MIA is needed. A total of 296 surgically excised pulmonary adenocarcinomas were reviewed from 254 patients (1997-2009). Slides were independently reviewed by 2 pulmonary pathologists who categorized tumors as AIS, MIA, or IA. Of 296 nodules, 244 (82.4%) were agreed upon by both observers: 10 AIS, 61 MIA, and 173 IA (κ = 0.63, good agreement). In 6 cases (2%), there was disagreement between AIS and MIA; in 45 cases (15%), there was disagreement between MIA and IA; and in 1 case, there was disagreement between AIS and IA. Overall survival was significantly different among categories as determined by both observers. Cases with disagreement between MIA and IA had similar survival to agreed MIA. Disease-specific 10-year survival was 100% for AIS (both observers) and 97.3% and 97.6% for MIA, although this did not reach statistical significance compared to IA for either observer. Good agreement was present between observers when classifying tumors as AIS, MIA, and IA. Significant differences in overall survival were present between the 3 groups for both observers, and interobserver variability was evident. Patients with AIS and MIA experienced excellent DSS.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AIS; Agreement; MIA; Minimally invasive adenocarcinoma; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 27067781     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2015.12.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  14 in total

1.  Implications of the Eighth Edition of the TNM Proposal: Invasive Versus Total Tumor Size for the T Descriptor in Pathologic Stage I-IIA Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Koji Kameda; Takashi Eguchi; Shaohua Lu; Yang Qu; Kay See Tan; Kyuichi Kadota; Prasad S Adusumilli; William D Travis
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 15.609

Review 2.  Computer Aided Nodule Analysis and Risk Yield (CANARY) characterization of adenocarcinoma: radiologic biopsy, risk stratification and future directions.

Authors:  Ryan Clay; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Ronald Karwoski; Fabien Maldonado; Tobias Peikert; Brian Bartholmai
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-06

3.  Correlation of computed tomography quantitative parameters with tumor invasion and Ki-67 expression in early lung adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Hao Dong; Lekang Yin; Cuncheng Lou; Junjie Yang; Xinbin Wang; Yonggang Qiu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  Genomic Underpinnings of Tumor Behavior in In Situ and Early Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Jun Qian; Shilin Zhao; Yong Zou; S M Jamshedur Rahman; Maria-Fernanda Senosain; Thomas Stricker; Heidi Chen; Charles A Powell; Alain C Borczuk; Pierre P Massion
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-03-15       Impact factor: 21.405

5.  Clinical characteristics and programmed cell death ligand-1 expression in adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma of lung.

Authors:  Renke Yu; Zhengfu He; Ying Lou; Hanliang Jiang; Yuhui Wu; Zhen Liu; Hongming Pan; Weidong Han
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-10-26

Review 6.  Controversies and challenges in the histologic subtyping of lung adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Kelly J Butnor
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2020-06

7.  Qualitative and quantitative imaging features of pulmonary subsolid nodules: differentiating invasive adenocarcinoma from minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and preinvasive lesions.

Authors:  Linlin Qi; Wenwen Lu; Lin Yang; Wei Tang; Shijun Zhao; Yao Huang; Ning Wu; Jianwei Wang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Computer-Aided Nodule Assessment and Risk Yield (CANARY) may facilitate non-invasive prediction of EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Ryan Clay; Benjamin R Kipp; Sarah Jenkins; Ron A Karwoski; Fabien Maldonado; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Jesse S Voss; Brian J Bartholmai; Marie Christine Aubry; Tobias Peikert
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  8th Edition Tumor, Node, and Metastasis T-Stage Prognosis Discrepancies: Solid Component Diameter Predicts Prognosis Better than Invasive Component Diameter.

Authors:  Kazuhito Funai; Akikazu Kawase; Kiyomichi Mizuno; Sin Koyama; Norihiko Shiiya
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 6.639

10.  Evaluation of dynamic image progression of minimally invasive and preinvasive lung adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Tianxiang Chen; Xiaocheng Zhang; Alessio Campisi; Angelo Paolo Ciarrocchi; Andrea Dell'Amore; Liwei Song; Yunhai Yang; Chengshui Chen; Qingquan Luo
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.