Comparative validation of clinical staging based on solid component versus total tumor size in resected lung
Yura Ahn1, Jae Kwang Yun2, Jooae Choe1
1Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Objectives:
To compare clinical staging based on total tumor size with that of solid component size using the same criteria.
Materials And Methods:
Patients who underwent curative resection for clinical stage IA1-IB adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively included. Patients were re-staged according to the criteria of the current TNM staging using total tumor size (cStagetotal) and solid component size (cStagesolid). Discrimination and prognostication for overall survival and freedom from recurrence were compared between cStagetotal and cStagesolid. The correlation with pathologic risk factors (high-grade pattern, lymphovascular invasion, and pathologic lymph node metastasis) was assessed.
Results:
A total of 4680 patients were included. From cStagetotal to cStagesolid, 32.6% of patients (1525/4680) were downstaged. Overall survival stratification within clinical stage IA-3 for subsolid lesions was enabled only with cStagesolid. Both cStagetotal and cStagesolid demonstrated mortality risk stratification between neighboring stages from IA1 to IB (all p < 0.05); however, discrimination (C-index: 0.732 vs. 0.721) and prognostication (Akaike Information Criterion (AIC): 8609 vs. 8645; R2: 0.084 vs. 0.077) were better in cStagesolid. Additionally, cStagesolid showed an improved correlation with pathologic risk factors and pathologic lymph node metastasis (both any pN and pN2). cStagesolid also showed improved discrimination (C-index: 0.731 vs. 0.722) and prognostication (AIC: 12,257 vs. 12,316; R2: 0.102 vs. 0.091) than cStagetotal for freedom from recurrence.
Conclusion:
Using the same size criteria, clinical staging based on solid component size provides enhanced performance and correlation with pathologic risk factors compared to total tumor size.
Key Points:
Question A direct comparative validation of clinical staging based on solid component size versus total tumor size under the same criteria has not been conducted. Findings Correlation with pathologic risk factors and lymph node metastasis, especially pN2, was stronger in clinical staging based on solid component. Clinical relevance It is reasonable for future revisions to be based on the current scheme using solid component size.
More Related Videos
08:54Pathological Analysis of Lung Metastasis Following Lateral Tail-Vein Injection of Tumor Cells
Published on: May 20, 2020
04:04Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Intratumoral Injection of Cisplatin for the Treatment of Isolated Mediastinal Recurrence of Lung Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2017