| Literature DB >> 35912197 |
Kun Wang1, Mengchao Xue1, Jianhao Qiu1, Ling Liu2, Yueyao Wang2, Rongyang Li1, Chenghao Qu1, Weiming Yue1, Hui Tian1.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of sublobar resection and selective lymph node dissection is gradually being accepted by thoracic surgeons for patients within early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, there are still some NSCLC patients develop lymphatic metastasis at clinical T1 stage. Lung adenocarcinoma with a micropapillary (MP) component poses a higher risk of lymph node metastasis and recurrence even when the MP component is not predominant. Our study aimed to explore the genetic features and occult lymph node metastasis (OLNM) risk factors in patients with a non-predominant micropapillary component (NP-MPC) in a large of patient's cohort with surgically resected lung adenocarcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: EGFR 19del; adenocarcinoma; micropapillary; nomogram; occult lymph node metastasis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35912197 PMCID: PMC9326108 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.945997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Flow diagram of patients excluded in this research. OLNM, occult lymph node metastasis; NOLNM, non- occult lymph node metastasis.
Clinicopathological variables in the cohort of enrolled patients.
| Clinicopathological profiles | Total | pN+ | pN- |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.241 | |||
| Male | 204 | 46 (22.5%) | 158 (77.5%) | |
| Female | 238 | 43 (18.1%) | 195 (81.9%) | |
| Age, years | 61 (54-66) | 57 (52-65) | 62 (55-67) |
|
| Smoking history | 0.682 | |||
| Non-smoker | 310 | 64 (20.6%) | 246 (79.4%) | |
| Former/Current smoker | 132 | 25 (18.9%) | 107 (81.1%) | |
| CEA, ng/ml | 3.19 (1.92-6.06) | 4.02 (2.05-8.18) | 3.15 (1.87-5.86) | 0.078 |
| CYFRA21-1, ng/ml | 2.22 (1.67-3.10) | 3.43 (2.29-4.18) | 2.10 (1.58-2.72) |
|
| SCC, ng/ml | 0.80 (0.60-1.13) | 0.80 (0.60-1.06) | 0.84 (0.60-1.13) | 0.957 |
| pro-GRP, pg/ml | 39.10 (31.28-47.11) | 38.90 (31.74-49.43) | 39.10 (30.92-46.71) | 0.767 |
| CA125, U/ml | 10.90 (7.78-15.23) | 12.75 (8.38-18.35) | 10.35 (7.53-14.80) | 0.057 |
| NSE, ng/ml | 17.80 (14.50-21.80) | 18.90 (15.28-23.05) | 17.70 (14.4-21.56) | 0.102 |
| Tumor size, cm | 2.00 (1.50-2.70) | 2.50 (2.0-3.0) | 2.0 (1.5-2.6) |
|
| Tumor location | 0.202 | |||
| RUL | 140 | 27 (19.3%) | 113 (80.7%) | |
| RML | 49 | 12 (24.5%) | 37 (75.5%) | |
| RLL | 86 | 11 (12.8%) | 75 (87.2%) | |
| LUL | 90 | 18 (20.0%) | 72 (80.0%) | |
| LLL | 77 | 21 (27.3%) | 56 (72.7%) | |
| TNM stage |
| |||
| IA1-3 | 254 | 1 (1.2%) | 253 (98.8%) | |
| IB | 64 | 0 | 64 (100%) | |
| IIB | 67 | 59 (88.1%) | 8 (11.9%) | |
| IIIA | 51 | 27 (52.9%) | 24 (47.1%) | |
| IIIB | 1 | 0 | 1 (100%) | |
| IVA | 5 | 2 (40.0%) | 3 (60.0%) | |
| Resected lymph node number, median(IQR) | 9 (5-12) | 10 (8-14) | 8(5-12) |
|
| Acinar component, % | 45 (30-70) | 55 (30-70) | 45 (30-70) | 0.348 |
| Lepidic component, % | 10 (0-25) | 0 (0-10) | 10 (0-27) |
|
| Papillary component, % | 15 (0-30) | 15 (0-30) | 15 (0-40) | 0.076 |
| Micropapillary component, % | 10 (5-15) | 10 (5-20) | 5 (5-10) |
|
| Solid component, % | 0 (0-0) | 5 (0-10) | 0 (0-0) |
|
CEA, Carcinoembryonic antigen; CYFRA21-1, cytokeratin fragment antigen 21-1; SCC, Squamous cell carcinoma antigen; pro-GRP: progastrin-releasing peptide; CA125, antigen carbohydrate 125; NSE, neuron specific enolase; RUL, Right upper lobe; RML, Right middle lobe; RLL, Right lower lobe; LUL, Left upper lobe; LLL, Left lower lobe; IA, Invasive adenocarcinoma; IQR, interquartile range.Bold represents a p-value <0.05 among subgroups.
Univariate logistic regression analysis of the OLNM risk.
| Characteristics | OR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||
| Male | 0.73 | (0.43-1. 27) | 0.27 |
| Female | |||
| Age, years | 0.96 | (0.93-0.99) |
|
| Tumor size, cm | 1.89 | (1.26-2.97) |
|
| CYFRA21-1, ng/ml | 1.66 | ((1.39-2.00) |
|
| Resected lymph node number, median(IQR) | 1.04 | (0.99-1.09) | 0.73 |
| Micropapillary component, % | 1.03 | (1.01-1.05) |
|
| Solid component, % | 1.04 | (1.04-1.07) |
|
OLNM, occult lymph node metastasis; CYFRA21-1, cytokeratin fragment antigen 21-1; IQR, interquartile range. Bold represented a p-value < 0.05 among subgroups.
Figure 2Targeted genetic features detected by ARMS-PCR. (A) Gene mutation counts and frequencies of EGFR, KRAS, ALK, ROS1, and HER2; (B) Different distributions of EGFR exon mutations in OLNM and NOLNM groups. ARMS-PCR, amplification refractory mutation system-polymerase chain reaction; NA, no genetic mutations detected. OLNM, occult lymph node metastasis; NOLNM, non- occult lymph node metastasis.
Comparison of the correlation between EGFR exon mutation and OLNM.
| pN+ | pN- | χ2 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EGFR mutation, % | ||||
| Negative | 5 (10.2%) | 59 (52.2%) | ||
| positive | 44 (89.8%) | 54 (47.8%) | 25.238 |
|
| Deletion in exon19 | 25 | 19 | 8.773 |
|
| L858R | 16 | 27 | 1.831 | 0.176 |
| Other mutations | 3 | 8 | 1.556 | 0.212 |
OLNM, occult lymph node metastasis; Bold represented a p-value < 0.05 among subgroups.
Figure 3Nomogram model predicting the occult lymph node metastasis risk in stage 1a-c patients with lung adenocarcinoma. CYFRA21-1, cytokeratin fragment antigen 21-1.
Figure 4Nomogram prediction model is evaluated by calibration plot.
Figure 5ROC curves of nomogram, CYFRA21-1, solid component, micropapillary component and tumor sizes. ROC, Receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.