Radiological classification, gene-mutation status, and surgical prognosis of synchronous multiple primary lung cancer

Author(s):  
Ji-wen Huo ◽  
Tian-you Luo ◽  
Xiao-qun He ◽  
Jun-wei Gong ◽  
Fa-jin Lv ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guotian Pei ◽  
Mingwei Li ◽  
Xianjun Min ◽  
Qiang Liu ◽  
Dasheng Li ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe incidence of early stage multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC) has been increasing in recent years, while the ideal strategy for its diagnosis and treatment remains controversial. The present study conducted genomic analysis to identify a new molecular classification method for accurately predicting the diagnosis and therapy for patients with early stage MPLC.MethodsA total of 240 tissue samples from 203 patients with multiple-non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) (n = 30), early stage single-NSCLC (Group A, n = 94), and advanced-stage NSCLC (Group B, n = 79) were subjected to targeted multigene panel sequencing.ResultsThirty patients for whom next-generation sequencing was performed on >1 tumor were identified, yielding 45 tumor pairs. The frequencies of EGFR, TP53, RBM10, ERBB2, and CDKN2A mutations exhibited significant differences between early and advanced-stage NSCLCs. The prevalence of the EGFR L858R mutation in early stage NSCLC was remarkably higher than that in advanced-stage NSCLC (P = 0.047). The molecular method classified tumor pairs into 26 definite MPLC tumors and four intrapulmonary metastasis (IM) tumors. A high rate of discordance in driver genetic alterations was found in the different tumor lesions of MPLC patients. The prospective Martini histologic prediction of MPLC was discordant with the molecular method for three patients (16.7%), particularly in the prediction of IM (91.7% discordant).ConclusionsComprehensive molecular evaluation allows the unambiguous delineation of clonal relationships among tumors. In comparison, the Martini and Melamed criteria have notable limitations in the recognition of IM. Our results support the adoption of a large panel to supplement histology for strongly discriminating NSCLC clonal relationships in clinical practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 618-623
Author(s):  
Yi Liu ◽  
Yanhua Tang ◽  
Zhiqiang Xue ◽  
Xin Jin ◽  
Guangyu Ma ◽  
...  

BMC Surgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Fei Chen ◽  
Chun-Ying Xie ◽  
Bing-Yu Rao ◽  
Shi-Chao Shan ◽  
Xin Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background As there is no consensus on the optimal surgery strategy for multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC), we conducted this study to address this issue by comparing the prognosis of MPLC patients underwent different surgical strategies including sublobar resection and the standard resection through a systemic review and meta-analysis. Methods Relevant literature was obtained from three databases including PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for the screening of articles to be selected for further conduction of systemic review and meta-analysis. The HRs of OS of the sublobar group compared with standard resection group were extracted directly or calculated indirectly from included researches. Results Ten researches published from 2000 to 2017 were included in this study, with 468 and 445 MPLC cases for the standard resection group and sublobar resection group respectively. The result suggested that OS of MPLC patients underwent sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection for at least one lesion) was comparable with those underwent standard resection approach (lobectomy or pneumonectomy for all lesions), with HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67–1.71, p = 0.784. Further analysis found no difference in subgroups of synchronous and metachronous (from second metachronous lesion), different population region and dominant sex type. Conclusions This study may reveal that sublobar resection is acceptable for patients with MPLC at an early stage, because of the equivalent prognosis to the standard resection and better pulmonary function preservation. Further research is needed to validate these findings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 101270
Author(s):  
Che-Chi Liao ◽  
Yu-Sen Lin ◽  
Yu-Chao Lin ◽  
Chiao-Jen Cheng ◽  
Shuo-Chueh Chen

2019 ◽  
Vol Volume 12 ◽  
pp. 4281-4285
Author(s):  
Yi Bao ◽  
Jiayuan Wu ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Yawei Yu

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 842-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengmeng Jiang ◽  
Yiqian Zhang ◽  
Junshen Xu ◽  
Min Ji ◽  
Yinglong Guo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document