Fangqiu Fu1, Yang Zhang1, Shengping Wang2, Yuan Li3, Zezhou Wang4, Hong Hu1, Haiquan Chen5. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery and State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China; Institute of Thoracic Oncology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Department of Cancer Prevention, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Thoracic Surgery and State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China; Institute of Thoracic Oncology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: hqchen1@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pure ground-glass nodules are considered to be radiologically noninvasive in lung adenocarcinoma. However, some pure ground-glass nodules are found to be invasive adenocarcinoma pathologically. This study aims to identify the computed tomography parameters distinguishing invasive adenocarcinoma from adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma. METHODS: From May 2011 to December 2015, patients with completely resected adenocarcinoma appearing as pure ground-glass nodules were reviewed. To evaluate the association between computed tomography features and the invasiveness of pure ground-glass nodules, logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Among 432 enrolled patients, 118 (27.3%) were classified as adenocarcinoma in situ, 213 (49.3%) were classified as minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, 101 (23.4%) were classified as invasive adenocarcinoma. There was no postoperative recurrence for patients with pure ground-glass nodules. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that computed tomography size was the only independent radiographic factor associated with adenocarcinoma in situ (odds ratio, 47.165; 95% confidence interval, 19.279-115.390; P < .001), whereas computed tomography density was not (odds ratio, 1.002; 95% confidence interval, 0.999-1.005; P = .127). Further analyses revealed that there was no distributional difference in computed tomography density among 3 groups (P = .173). Even after propensity score matching for adenocarcinoma in situ/minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and invasive adenocarcinoma, no significant difference in computed tomography density was observed (P = .741). The subanalyses for pure ground-glass nodules with 1 cm or more in size also indicated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pure ground-glass nodules, computed tomography size was the only radiographic parameter associated with tumor invasion. Measuring computed tomography density provided no advantage in differentiating invasive adenocarcinoma from adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma.
OBJECTIVE: Pure ground-glass nodules are considered to be radiologically noninvasive in lung adenocarcinoma. However, some pure ground-glass nodules are found to be invasive adenocarcinoma pathologically. This study aims to identify the computed tomography parameters distinguishing invasive adenocarcinoma from adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma. METHODS: From May 2011 to December 2015, patients with completely resected adenocarcinoma appearing as pure ground-glass nodules were reviewed. To evaluate the association between computed tomography features and the invasiveness of pure ground-glass nodules, logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Among 432 enrolled patients, 118 (27.3%) were classified as adenocarcinoma in situ, 213 (49.3%) were classified as minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, 101 (23.4%) were classified as invasive adenocarcinoma. There was no postoperative recurrence for patients with pure ground-glass nodules. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that computed tomography size was the only independent radiographic factor associated with adenocarcinoma in situ (odds ratio, 47.165; 95% confidence interval, 19.279-115.390; P < .001), whereas computed tomography density was not (odds ratio, 1.002; 95% confidence interval, 0.999-1.005; P = .127). Further analyses revealed that there was no distributional difference in computed tomography density among 3 groups (P = .173). Even after propensity score matching for adenocarcinoma in situ/minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and invasive adenocarcinoma, no significant difference in computed tomography density was observed (P = .741). The subanalyses for pure ground-glass nodules with 1 cm or more in size also indicated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pure ground-glass nodules, computed tomography size was the only radiographic parameter associated with tumor invasion. Measuring computed tomography density provided no advantage in differentiating invasive adenocarcinoma from adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma.