Tomonari Oki1,2,3, Keiju Aokage2, Shogo Nomura4, Kenta Tane2, Tomohiro Miyoshi2, Norihiko Shiiya3, Kazuhito Funai3, Masahiro Tsuboi2, Genichiro Ishii5. 1. Division of Pathology, Exploratory Oncology Research and Clinical Trial Center, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. 3. First Department of Surgery, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Japan. 4. Biostatistics Division Center for Research Administration and Support, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. 5. Division of Pathology, Exploratory Oncology Research and Clinical Trial Center, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan. gishii@east.ncc.go.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal method for measuring pathological invasive size that predicts prognosis in invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (IMA). METHODS: We analyzed patients who underwent complete surgical resection for lung IMA. The invasive size of IMA was measured using two methods: (1) excluding lepidic method (ELM), that is, lepidic component was excluded from the invasive area regardless of alveolar mucin and (2) including lepidic method (ILM), that is, lepidic component was included as invasive area if alveolar space was filled with mucin. The prognostic predictability of ELM and ILM on survival was assessed using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. The discriminative power was assessed using concordance probability estimate (CPE) and Akaike's information criteria (AIC), and the prognostic impact of the newly redefined pathological stage according to ELM or ILM was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were included. The median invasive size via ELM and ILM was 1.4 cm (range, 0.0-7.7 cm) and 2.1 cm (range, 0.0-14.2 cm), respectively. ELM had better discriminative power than ILM (ELM, HR = 1.38, AIC = 110.19, CPE = 0.671; ILM, HR = 1.19, AIC = 111.52, CPE = 0.655). Although the survival curves based on ILM crossed between T3 and T4, the overall survival (OS) curves based on ELM were sufficiently distinct from one another. CONCLUSIONS: ELM has higher discriminative power for OS, and thus the optimal method for measuring the pathological invasive size of IMA should exclude the lepidic component regardless of alveolar mucin.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal method for measuring pathological invasive size that predicts prognosis in invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (IMA). METHODS: We analyzed patients who underwent complete surgical resection for lung IMA. The invasive size of IMA was measured using two methods: (1) excluding lepidic method (ELM), that is, lepidic component was excluded from the invasive area regardless of alveolar mucin and (2) including lepidic method (ILM), that is, lepidic component was included as invasive area if alveolar space was filled with mucin. The prognostic predictability of ELM and ILM on survival was assessed using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. The discriminative power was assessed using concordance probability estimate (CPE) and Akaike's information criteria (AIC), and the prognostic impact of the newly redefined pathological stage according to ELM or ILM was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were included. The median invasive size via ELM and ILM was 1.4 cm (range, 0.0-7.7 cm) and 2.1 cm (range, 0.0-14.2 cm), respectively. ELM had better discriminative power than ILM (ELM, HR = 1.38, AIC = 110.19, CPE = 0.671; ILM, HR = 1.19, AIC = 111.52, CPE = 0.655). Although the survival curves based on ILM crossed between T3 and T4, the overall survival (OS) curves based on ELM were sufficiently distinct from one another. CONCLUSIONS: ELM has higher discriminative power for OS, and thus the optimal method for measuring the pathological invasive size of IMA should exclude the lepidic component regardless of alveolarmucin.
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
Authors: William D Travis; Elisabeth Brambilla; Andrew G Nicholson; Yasushi Yatabe; John H M Austin; Mary Beth Beasley; Lucian R Chirieac; Sanja Dacic; Edwina Duhig; Douglas B Flieder; Kim Geisinger; Fred R Hirsch; Yuichi Ishikawa; Keith M Kerr; Masayuki Noguchi; Giuseppe Pelosi; Charles A Powell; Ming Sound Tsao; Ignacio Wistuba Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jennifer M Boland; Joseph J Maleszewski; Jason A Wampfler; Jesse S Voss; Benjamin R Kipp; Ping Yang; Eunhee S Yi Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: William D Travis; Elisabeth Brambilla; Masayuki Noguchi; Andrew G Nicholson; Kim R Geisinger; Yasushi Yatabe; David G Beer; Charles A Powell; Gregory J Riely; Paul E Van Schil; Kavita Garg; John H M Austin; Hisao Asamura; Valerie W Rusch; Fred R Hirsch; Giorgio Scagliotti; Tetsuya Mitsudomi; Rudolf M Huber; Yuichi Ishikawa; James Jett; Montserrat Sanchez-Cespedes; Jean-Paul Sculier; Takashi Takahashi; Masahiro Tsuboi; Johan Vansteenkiste; Ignacio Wistuba; Pan-Chyr Yang; Denise Aberle; Christian Brambilla; Douglas Flieder; Wilbur Franklin; Adi Gazdar; Michael Gould; Philip Hasleton; Douglas Henderson; Bruce Johnson; David Johnson; Keith Kerr; Keiko Kuriyama; Jin Soo Lee; Vincent A Miller; Iver Petersen; Victor Roggli; Rafael Rosell; Nagahiro Saijo; Erik Thunnissen; Ming Tsao; David Yankelewitz Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Akihiko Yoshizawa; Noriko Motoi; Gregory J Riely; Cami S Sima; William L Gerald; Mark G Kris; Bernard J Park; Valerie W Rusch; William D Travis Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 7.842
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