Is invasive mediastinal staging necessary in intermediate risk patients with negative PET/CT?
N2
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
staging
Journal
Journal of thoracic disease
ISSN: 2072-1439
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Dis
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101533916
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
entrez:
18
9
2020
pubmed:
19
9
2020
medline:
19
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tumor involvement of mediastinal lymph nodes is of high importance in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Invasive mediastinal staging is recommended in selected patients without evidence of mediastinal involvement on staging by imaging. In the present study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of invasive mediastinal staging in reducing pN2, its impact on survival and the risk factors for occult pN2. Patients with NSCLC tumors larger than 3 cm, central tumors or cN1 cases treated in our institution between 2013 and 2018 were prospectively included in the study. Incidence of pN2 and overall survival was compared among invasively staged (IS) and non-invasively staged groups (NIS). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors of pN2. A total of 201 patients were included in the study, 79 (39.3%) of whom were not invasively staged (NIS group) and 122 (60.7%) were invasively staged (IS group). Incidence of cN1 and mean PET/CT uptake was different among both groups. Prevalence of pN2 was similar in both groups (7.6% in NIS Invasive staging does not reduce the incidence of pN2. However, this finding could be biased because in our series cN1 patients were more often staged and cN1 has been detected as a risk factor for pN2. In addition patient better selection after invasive staging might have an impact on overall survival. To conclude, invasive mediastinal staging in intermediate risk patients for positive mediastinal nodes is justified.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tumor involvement of mediastinal lymph nodes is of high importance in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Invasive mediastinal staging is recommended in selected patients without evidence of mediastinal involvement on staging by imaging. In the present study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of invasive mediastinal staging in reducing pN2, its impact on survival and the risk factors for occult pN2.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with NSCLC tumors larger than 3 cm, central tumors or cN1 cases treated in our institution between 2013 and 2018 were prospectively included in the study. Incidence of pN2 and overall survival was compared among invasively staged (IS) and non-invasively staged groups (NIS). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors of pN2.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 201 patients were included in the study, 79 (39.3%) of whom were not invasively staged (NIS group) and 122 (60.7%) were invasively staged (IS group). Incidence of cN1 and mean PET/CT uptake was different among both groups. Prevalence of pN2 was similar in both groups (7.6% in NIS
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Invasive staging does not reduce the incidence of pN2. However, this finding could be biased because in our series cN1 patients were more often staged and cN1 has been detected as a risk factor for pN2. In addition patient better selection after invasive staging might have an impact on overall survival. To conclude, invasive mediastinal staging in intermediate risk patients for positive mediastinal nodes is justified.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32944309
doi: 10.21037/jtd-20-1248
pii: jtd-12-08-3976
pmc: PMC7475585
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3976-3986Informations de copyright
2020 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-1248). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008 Nov;34(5):1081-4
pubmed: 18760928
Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Sep;86(3):912-20; discussion 912-20
pubmed: 18721582
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Oct;63(7):558-67
pubmed: 25629458
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1991;5(11):583-6; discussion 587
pubmed: 1772669
Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):7S-37S
pubmed: 23649434
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 May 4;86(9):673-80
pubmed: 8158698
Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 May;79(5):1682-5
pubmed: 15854954
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Feb 1;53(2):359-365
pubmed: 29029062
J Infect Public Health. 2012 Dec;5 Suppl 1:S35-40
pubmed: 23244185
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006 Nov;30(5):787-92
pubmed: 16971134
N Engl J Med. 1994 Jan 20;330(3):153-8
pubmed: 8043059
Eur Respir J. 2017 Dec 21;50(6):
pubmed: 29269579
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv1-iv21
pubmed: 28881918
Lung Cancer. 2019 Aug;134:254-258
pubmed: 31319990
Thorac Surg Clin. 2016 Aug;26(3):243-9
pubmed: 27427519
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Mar;97(3):957-64
pubmed: 24286635
Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e211S-e250S
pubmed: 23649440
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999 Jul;118(1):145-53
pubmed: 10384197
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2014 Aug;3(4):225-33
pubmed: 25806304
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jul 1;54(1):134-140
pubmed: 29447330
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014 May;45(5):787-98
pubmed: 24578407
J Thorac Oncol. 2012 Aug;7(8):1246-51
pubmed: 22659962
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Apr;155(4):1814-1822.e4
pubmed: 29221745
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Dec;10(12):1675-84
pubmed: 26709477
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012 Jul;42(1):93-100; discussion 100
pubmed: 22290911