Application of N Descriptors Proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer in Clinical
Hwayoung Song1, Sung Hyun Yoon1, Junghoon Kim1
1From the Department of Radiology (H.S., S.H.Y., Junghoon Kim, Jihang Kim, K.W.L., K.H.L.), Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (K.K.), Division of Pulmonology and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (C.T.L.), and Department of Pathology and Translational Medicine (J.H.C.), Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 82 Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13620, Korea; and Departments of Public Health Science, Graduate School of Public Health (W.L.) and Applied Bioengineering, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology (S.L.), Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract:
Background Patients with N1 or N2 non-small cell lung cancer exhibit prognostic heterogeneity. To refine the current N staging system, new N stages were proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. However, those proposed new N stages have not been validated. Purpose To evaluate the prognostic performance of the proposed N descriptors for clinical staging. Materials and Methods Participants with non-small cell lung cancer without distant metastasis from January 2010 to December 2014 were retrospectively included. Each patient's clinical N (cN) stage was assigned to one of seven categories (cN0, cN1a, cN1b, cN2a1, cN2a2, cN2b, cN3). The 5-year overall survival rates were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% CIs were estimated by using a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. Ad hoc analyses according to lymph node (LN) size were performed. Results A total of 1271 patients (median age, 66 years; interquartile range, 59-73 years; 812 men) were included. The 5-year overall survival rates were 77.3%, 53.7%, 36.0%, 29.2%, 34.4%, 18.0%, and 12.4% for stages cN0, cN1a, cN1b, cN2a1, cN2a2, cN2b, and cN3, respectively. Patients with cN2b disease had a worse prognosis than patients with cN2a disease (HR, 1.53; 95% CI: 1.06, 2.22; P = .02). There was no prognostic difference between cN1b and cN1a (HR, 1.13; 95% CI: 0.61, 2.09; P = .71); however, there was a difference between cN1 subgroups when stratified by LN size (≥2 cm; HR, 2.26; 95% CI: 1.16, 4.44; P = .02). Within cN2a disease, there were no differences between cN2a1 and cN2a2 (HR, 0.98; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.56; P = .93) or between subgroups according to LN size (HR, 0.74; 95% CI: 0.40, 1.37; P = .34). Conclusion A survival difference was observed between single- and multistation involvement among cN2 disease. The number of involved lymph node stations in patients with cN1 disease and the presence of skip metastasis in patients with cN2 disease were not associated with survival differences. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
