Cargando…

Lepidic component identifies a subgroup of lung adenocarcinoma with a distinctive prognosis: a multicenter propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate the prognostic impact of the lepidic component on T stage in patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). METHODS: A retrospective data set including 863 cases of LUAD with lepidic component and 856 cases without lepidic component was used to identify matched lepi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Erjia, Dai, Chenyang, Xie, Huikang, Su, Hang, Hu, Xuefei, Li, Ming, Fan, Junqiang, Liu, Jinshi, Zhu, Quan, Zhang, Lei, Ke, Honggang, Chen, Chang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7768877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33488781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1758835920982845
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate the prognostic impact of the lepidic component on T stage in patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). METHODS: A retrospective data set including 863 cases of LUAD with lepidic component and 856 cases without lepidic component was used to identify matched lepidic-positive and lepidic-negative cohorts (n = 376 patients per group) using a propensity-score matching. Primary outcome variables included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic factors were assessed by Cox regression analysis and Kaplan–Meier estimates. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that lepidic component presence was an independent prognostic factor for prolonged RFS (p < 0.001) and OS (p < 0.001). Furthermore, lepidic ratio (LR) >25% or ⩽25% were confirmed to be independent prolonged survival predictors. No survival differences were observed between patients with LUAD with LR >25% or ⩽25% (RFS p = 0.333; OS p = 0.078). The 5-year OS rates of patients with LUAD with a lepidic component were 90% regardless of the T stage, and these survival rates were significantly better than those of patients with LUAD without a lepidic component in the corresponding T stage. Multivariate analysis confirmed that T stage was associated with survival only in patients with LUAD without a lepidic component. CONCLUSIONS: Lepidic component presence identifies a LUAD subgroup with an excellent prognosis independent of the LR, pathological T classification. Considering the lepidic component presence may improve prognostic predictions for patients with LUAD.