Cargando…

Pan-Driver-Negatives versus Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutants for C-Stage IA Lung Adenocarcinoma with Ground-Glass Opacity

Purpose: We aimed to verify the prognosis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation of clinical (c)-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma with the ground-glass opacity (GGO) component. Methods: We evaluated 226 cases of surgically resected c-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma with GGO component. Endpoint...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Ming, Xi, Junjie, Zhang, Huan, Jin, Xing, Zhang, Jianrong, Feng, Mingxiang, Zhan, Cheng, Wang, Qun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Editorial Committee of Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9585333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35644565
http://dx.doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.22-00058
_version_ 1784813470949048320
author Li, Ming
Xi, Junjie
Zhang, Huan
Jin, Xing
Zhang, Jianrong
Feng, Mingxiang
Zhan, Cheng
Wang, Qun
author_facet Li, Ming
Xi, Junjie
Zhang, Huan
Jin, Xing
Zhang, Jianrong
Feng, Mingxiang
Zhan, Cheng
Wang, Qun
author_sort Li, Ming
collection PubMed
description Purpose: We aimed to verify the prognosis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation of clinical (c)-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma with the ground-glass opacity (GGO) component. Methods: We evaluated 226 cases of surgically resected c-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma with GGO component. Endpoints were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan–Meier analysis and the log-rank test were used to estimate the survival differences. Prognostic factors were assessed using the univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Among the 226 cases, 177 cases harbored the EGFR-mutant adenocarcinoma with the GGO component. The mean duration of follow-up time was 54.4 ± 1.2 months. The 5-year OS and RFS did not differ significantly between the EGFR-mutant and wild-type groups (5-year OS 100% vs. 94.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.276, P = 0.168; 5-year RFS 94.7% vs. 95.7%, HR 0.873, P = 0.864). Multivariable Cox hazard model revealed that radiologically solid component size (P = 0.010) and pathological node-positive (P = 0.036) were significant predictors of an inferior RFS. Conclusion: EGFR-mutant was not a prognostic factor of OS and RFS for c-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma with the GGO component. Radiologically solid component size and pathological lymph node status were independent prognostic factors of worse RFS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9585333
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The Editorial Committee of Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95853332022-11-03 Pan-Driver-Negatives versus Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutants for C-Stage IA Lung Adenocarcinoma with Ground-Glass Opacity Li, Ming Xi, Junjie Zhang, Huan Jin, Xing Zhang, Jianrong Feng, Mingxiang Zhan, Cheng Wang, Qun Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Original Article Purpose: We aimed to verify the prognosis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation of clinical (c)-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma with the ground-glass opacity (GGO) component. Methods: We evaluated 226 cases of surgically resected c-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma with GGO component. Endpoints were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan–Meier analysis and the log-rank test were used to estimate the survival differences. Prognostic factors were assessed using the univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Among the 226 cases, 177 cases harbored the EGFR-mutant adenocarcinoma with the GGO component. The mean duration of follow-up time was 54.4 ± 1.2 months. The 5-year OS and RFS did not differ significantly between the EGFR-mutant and wild-type groups (5-year OS 100% vs. 94.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.276, P = 0.168; 5-year RFS 94.7% vs. 95.7%, HR 0.873, P = 0.864). Multivariable Cox hazard model revealed that radiologically solid component size (P = 0.010) and pathological node-positive (P = 0.036) were significant predictors of an inferior RFS. Conclusion: EGFR-mutant was not a prognostic factor of OS and RFS for c-stage IA lung adenocarcinoma with the GGO component. Radiologically solid component size and pathological lymph node status were independent prognostic factors of worse RFS. The Editorial Committee of Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2022-05-28 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9585333/ /pubmed/35644565 http://dx.doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.22-00058 Text en ©2022 Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Article
Li, Ming
Xi, Junjie
Zhang, Huan
Jin, Xing
Zhang, Jianrong
Feng, Mingxiang
Zhan, Cheng
Wang, Qun
Pan-Driver-Negatives versus Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutants for C-Stage IA Lung Adenocarcinoma with Ground-Glass Opacity
title Pan-Driver-Negatives versus Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutants for C-Stage IA Lung Adenocarcinoma with Ground-Glass Opacity
title_full Pan-Driver-Negatives versus Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutants for C-Stage IA Lung Adenocarcinoma with Ground-Glass Opacity
title_fullStr Pan-Driver-Negatives versus Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutants for C-Stage IA Lung Adenocarcinoma with Ground-Glass Opacity
title_full_unstemmed Pan-Driver-Negatives versus Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutants for C-Stage IA Lung Adenocarcinoma with Ground-Glass Opacity
title_short Pan-Driver-Negatives versus Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutants for C-Stage IA Lung Adenocarcinoma with Ground-Glass Opacity
title_sort pan-driver-negatives versus epidermal growth factor receptor mutants for c-stage ia lung adenocarcinoma with ground-glass opacity
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9585333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35644565
http://dx.doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.22-00058
work_keys_str_mv AT liming pandrivernegativesversusepidermalgrowthfactorreceptormutantsforcstageialungadenocarcinomawithgroundglassopacity
AT xijunjie pandrivernegativesversusepidermalgrowthfactorreceptormutantsforcstageialungadenocarcinomawithgroundglassopacity
AT zhanghuan pandrivernegativesversusepidermalgrowthfactorreceptormutantsforcstageialungadenocarcinomawithgroundglassopacity
AT jinxing pandrivernegativesversusepidermalgrowthfactorreceptormutantsforcstageialungadenocarcinomawithgroundglassopacity
AT zhangjianrong pandrivernegativesversusepidermalgrowthfactorreceptormutantsforcstageialungadenocarcinomawithgroundglassopacity
AT fengmingxiang pandrivernegativesversusepidermalgrowthfactorreceptormutantsforcstageialungadenocarcinomawithgroundglassopacity
AT zhancheng pandrivernegativesversusepidermalgrowthfactorreceptormutantsforcstageialungadenocarcinomawithgroundglassopacity
AT wangqun pandrivernegativesversusepidermalgrowthfactorreceptormutantsforcstageialungadenocarcinomawithgroundglassopacity