Andre L Moreira1, Paolo S S Ocampo2, Yuhe Xia3, Hua Zhong3, Prudence A Russell4, Yuko Minami5, Wendy A Cooper6, Akihiko Yoshida7, Lukas Bubendorf8, Mauro Papotti9, Giuseppe Pelosi10, Fernando Lopez-Rios11, Keiko Kunitoki12, Dana Ferrari-Light13, Lynette M Sholl14, Mary Beth Beasley15, Alain Borczuk16, Johan Botling17, Elisabeth Brambilla18, Gang Chen19, Teh-Ying Chou20, Jin-Haeng Chung21, Sanja Dacic22, Deepali Jain23, Fred R Hirsch24, David Hwang25, Sylvie Lantuejoul26, Dongmei Lin27, John W Longshore28, Noriko Motoi7, Masayuki Noguchi29, Claudia Poleri30, Natasha Rekhtman31, Ming-Sound Tsao32, Erik Thunnissen33, William D Travis31, Yasushi Yatabe7, Anja C Roden34, Jillian B Daigneault35, Ignacio I Wistuba36, Keith M Kerr37, Harvey Pass13, Andrew G Nicholson38, Mari Mino-Kenudson39. 1. Department of Pathology, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York. Electronic address: andre.moreira@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Pathology, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York. 3. Department of Biostatistics, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York. 4. Department of Pathology, St. Vincent's Hospital, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Pathology, Ibarakihigashi National Hospital, Tokai, Japan. 6. Department of Pathology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia. 7. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 8. Institute of Medical Genetics and Pathology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Switzerland. 9. Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 10. Department of Pathology, University of Milan, Milan Italy; IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan Italy. 11. Pathology-Laboratorio de Dianas Terapeuticas, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain. 12. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 13. Department of Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York. 14. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 15. Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, New York. 16. Department of Pathology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 17. Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Rudbeck Laboratory, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. 18. Department of Anatomic Pathology and Cytology, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France. 19. Department fo Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 20. Department of Pathology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 21. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 22. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 23. Department of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 24. Center for Thoracic Oncology, The Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, New York. 25. Department of Laboratory Medicine & Molecular Diagnostics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 26. Department fo Pathology, Centre Léon Bérard Unicancer, Lyon, France. 27. Department of Pathology, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 28. Carolinas Pathology Group, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina. 29. Department of Pathology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. 30. Office of Pathology Consultants, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 31. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 32. University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 33. Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 34. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 35. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Aurora, Colorado. 36. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 37. Department of Pathology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, United Kingdom. 38. Department of Pathology, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom. 39. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A grading system for pulmonary adenocarcinoma has not been established. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer pathology panel evaluated a set of histologic criteria associated with prognosis aimed at establishing a grading system for invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A multi-institutional study involving multiple cohorts of invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas was conducted. A cohort of 284 stage I pulmonary adenocarcinomas was used as a training set to identify histologic features associated with patient outcomes (recurrence-free survival [RFS] and overall survival [OS]). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to select the best model, which was validated (n = 212) and tested (n = 300, including stage I-III) in independent cohorts. Reproducibility of the model was assessed using kappa statistics. RESULTS: The best model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.749 for RFS and 0.787 for OS) was composed of a combination of predominant plus high-grade histologic pattern with a cutoff of 20% for the latter. The model consists of the following: grade 1, lepidic predominant tumor; grade 2, acinar or papillary predominant tumor, both with no or less than 20% of high-grade patterns; and grade 3, any tumor with 20% or more of high-grade patterns (solid, micropapillary, or complex gland). Similar results were seen in the validation (AUC = 0.732 for RFS and 0.787 for OS) and test cohorts (AUC = 0.690 for RFS and 0.743 for OS), confirming the predictive value of the model. Interobserver reproducibility revealed good agreement (k = 0.617). CONCLUSIONS: A grading system based on the predominant and high-grade patterns is practical and prognostic for invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma.
INTRODUCTION: A grading system for pulmonary adenocarcinoma has not been established. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer pathology panel evaluated a set of histologic criteria associated with prognosis aimed at establishing a grading system for invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A multi-institutional study involving multiple cohorts of invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas was conducted. A cohort of 284 stage I pulmonary adenocarcinomas was used as a training set to identify histologic features associated with patient outcomes (recurrence-free survival [RFS] and overall survival [OS]). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to select the best model, which was validated (n = 212) and tested (n = 300, including stage I-III) in independent cohorts. Reproducibility of the model was assessed using kappa statistics. RESULTS: The best model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.749 for RFS and 0.787 for OS) was composed of a combination of predominant plus high-grade histologic pattern with a cutoff of 20% for the latter. The model consists of the following: grade 1, lepidic predominant tumor; grade 2, acinar or papillary predominant tumor, both with no or less than 20% of high-grade patterns; and grade 3, any tumor with 20% or more of high-grade patterns (solid, micropapillary, or complex gland). Similar results were seen in the validation (AUC = 0.732 for RFS and 0.787 for OS) and test cohorts (AUC = 0.690 for RFS and 0.743 for OS), confirming the predictive value of the model. Interobserver reproducibility revealed good agreement (k = 0.617). CONCLUSIONS: A grading system based on the predominant and high-grade patterns is practical and prognostic for invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma.
Authors: Emad Rakha; Maria J Pajares; Marius Ilie; Ruben Pio; Jose Echeveste; Elisha Hughes; Irshad Soomro; Elodie Long; Miguel A Idoate; Susanne Wagner; Jerry S Lanchbury; David R Baldwin; Paul Hofman; Luis M Montuenga Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Arne Warth; Thomas Muley; Michael Meister; Albrecht Stenzinger; Michael Thomas; Peter Schirmacher; Philipp A Schnabel; Jan Budczies; Hans Hoffmann; Wilko Weichert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kyuichi Kadota; Kei Suzuki; Stefan S Kachala; Emily C Zabor; Camelia S Sima; Andre L Moreira; Akihiko Yoshizawa; Gregory J Riely; Valerie W Rusch; Prasad S Adusumilli; William D Travis Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Mari Mino-Kenudson; Yin P Hung; Daniel J Shepherd; Elisabeth S Tabb; Keiko Kunitoki; M Lisa Zhang; Marina Kem; Jaimie Barth; David A Qualls; Meghan J Mooradian; Justin F Gainor Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 8.209
Authors: Julian A Villalba; Angela R Shih; Treah May S Sayo; Keiko Kunitoki; Yin P Hung; Amy Ly; Marina Kem; Lida P Hariri; Ashok Muniappan; Henning A Gaissert; Yolonda L Colson; Michael D Lanuti; Mari Mino-Kenudson Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 15.609