Aritoshi Hattori1, Shunki Hirayama2, Takeshi Matsunaga2, Takuo Hayashi3, Kazuya Takamochi2, Shiaki Oh2, Kenji Suzuki2. 1. Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. Electronic address: ahattori@juntendo.ac.jp. 2. Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Department of Human Pathology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated differences in the clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis based on the presence of ground glass opacity (GGO) components in small-sized lung adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 634 lung adenocarcinomas classed as c-stage IA in the eighth edition TNM classification. Staging was defined according to the solid component size measured by thin-section computed tomography. All tumors were grouped into either a GGO or solid group, based on the presence of a GGO component. RESULTS: Of the cases, 215 (34%) were classed as c-stage IA1 (T1mi: 88, T1a-GGO: 102, T1a-solid: 25), 255 (40%) as c-stage IA2 (T1b-GGO: 122, T1b-solid: 133), and 164 (26%) as c-stage IA3 (T1c-GGO: 44, T1c-solid: 120). Among the 546 c-stage IA cases excluding the T1mi lesions, Cox regression analysis revealed that presence of GGO was an independently significant prognosticator (p = 0.024). The result was validated in 494 c-stage IA lung adenocarcinomas with a nonpredominant GGO component, showing the presence of GGO as a significant prognosticator (p = 0.048). When we evaluated the prognostic impact of GGO presence in each clinical stage, the 5-year overall survival (OS) was significantly different between the GGO and solid groups (IA1: 97.8% versus 86.6%, p = 0.026; IA2: 89.3% versus 75.2%, p = 0.007; IA3: 88.5% versus 62.3%, p = 0.003). Furthermore, the 5-year overall survival b was distinct in parallel similar pathologic findings when comparing a lepidic versus an invasive component (IA1: 97.9% versus 85.6%, p = 0.031; IA2: 86.1% versus 69.4%, p = 0.007; IA3: 77.5% versus 55.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathologic and oncologic outcomes were disparate based on the presence of a GGO component in the eighth edition TNM classification of c-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated differences in the clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis based on the presence of ground glass opacity (GGO) components in small-sized lung adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 634 lung adenocarcinomas classed as c-stage IA in the eighth edition TNM classification. Staging was defined according to the solid component size measured by thin-section computed tomography. All tumors were grouped into either a GGO or solid group, based on the presence of a GGO component. RESULTS: Of the cases, 215 (34%) were classed as c-stage IA1 (T1mi: 88, T1a-GGO: 102, T1a-solid: 25), 255 (40%) as c-stage IA2 (T1b-GGO: 122, T1b-solid: 133), and 164 (26%) as c-stage IA3 (T1c-GGO: 44, T1c-solid: 120). Among the 546 c-stage IA cases excluding the T1mi lesions, Cox regression analysis revealed that presence of GGO was an independently significant prognosticator (p = 0.024). The result was validated in 494 c-stage IA lung adenocarcinomas with a nonpredominant GGO component, showing the presence of GGO as a significant prognosticator (p = 0.048). When we evaluated the prognostic impact of GGO presence in each clinical stage, the 5-year overall survival (OS) was significantly different between the GGO and solid groups (IA1: 97.8% versus 86.6%, p = 0.026; IA2: 89.3% versus 75.2%, p = 0.007; IA3: 88.5% versus 62.3%, p = 0.003). Furthermore, the 5-year overall survival b was distinct in parallel similar pathologic findings when comparing a lepidic versus an invasive component (IA1: 97.9% versus 85.6%, p = 0.031; IA2: 86.1% versus 69.4%, p = 0.007; IA3: 77.5% versus 55.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathologic and oncologic outcomes were disparate based on the presence of a GGO component in the eighth edition TNM classification of c-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma.
Authors: Dong Woog Yoon; Chu Hyun Kim; Soohyun Hwang; Yoon-La Choi; Jong Ho Cho; Hong Kwan Kim; Yong Soo Choi; Jhingook Kim; Young Mog Shim; Sumin Shin; Ho Yun Lee Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2022-06-17