Number of involved nodal stations predicts survival in small cell lung cancer.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Han Zhang, Cong Jiang, Dongliang Bian, Jing Zhang, Yuming Zhu, Jie Dai, Gening Jiang
{"title":"Number of involved nodal stations predicts survival in small cell lung cancer.","authors":"Han Zhang, Cong Jiang, Dongliang Bian, Jing Zhang, Yuming Zhu, Jie Dai, Gening Jiang","doi":"10.1186/s12890-024-03313-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In small cell lung cancer (SCLC), the pathological N category is identical to it in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and remains unchanged over a decade. Here we verified the discriminability of number of involved nodal stations (nS) in SCLC and compared its efficacy in predicting survival with currently used pathological nodal (pN) staging.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed the patients who received operations and were pathologically diagnosed as SCLC at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital between 2009 and 2019. X-tile software was adopted to determine optimal cut-off values for nS groups. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to compare survival between different groups. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was employed to evaluate the standardized net benefit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 369 patients were included. The median number of sampled stations was 6 (range 3-11), and the median number of positive stations was 1 (range 0-7). The optimal cutoff for nS groups was: nS0 (no station involved), nS1-2 (one or two stations involved), and nS ≥ 3 (three or more stations involved). Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were statistically different among all adjacent categories within the nS classification (p < 0.001, for both OS and RFS between each two subgroups), but survival curves for subgroups in pN overlapped (OS, p = 0.067; RFS, p = 0.068, pN2 vs. pN1). After adjusting for other confounders, nS was a prognostic indicator for OS and RFS. The DCA revealed that nS had improved predictive capability than pN.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our cohort study demonstrated that the nS might serve as a superior indicator to predict survival than pN in SCLC and was worth considering in the future definition of the N category.</p>","PeriodicalId":9148,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pulmonary Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":"519"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487922/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-024-03313-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In small cell lung cancer (SCLC), the pathological N category is identical to it in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and remains unchanged over a decade. Here we verified the discriminability of number of involved nodal stations (nS) in SCLC and compared its efficacy in predicting survival with currently used pathological nodal (pN) staging.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the patients who received operations and were pathologically diagnosed as SCLC at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital between 2009 and 2019. X-tile software was adopted to determine optimal cut-off values for nS groups. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to compare survival between different groups. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was employed to evaluate the standardized net benefit.

Results: A total of 369 patients were included. The median number of sampled stations was 6 (range 3-11), and the median number of positive stations was 1 (range 0-7). The optimal cutoff for nS groups was: nS0 (no station involved), nS1-2 (one or two stations involved), and nS ≥ 3 (three or more stations involved). Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were statistically different among all adjacent categories within the nS classification (p < 0.001, for both OS and RFS between each two subgroups), but survival curves for subgroups in pN overlapped (OS, p = 0.067; RFS, p = 0.068, pN2 vs. pN1). After adjusting for other confounders, nS was a prognostic indicator for OS and RFS. The DCA revealed that nS had improved predictive capability than pN.

Conclusions: Our cohort study demonstrated that the nS might serve as a superior indicator to predict survival than pN in SCLC and was worth considering in the future definition of the N category.

受累结节的数量可预测小细胞肺癌患者的生存期。
背景:在小细胞肺癌(SCLC)中,病理N分期与非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的N分期相同,且十多年来一直未变。在此,我们验证了受累结节站数(nS)在小细胞肺癌中的可鉴别性,并将其在预测生存率方面的功效与目前使用的病理结节(pN)分期进行了比较:我们回顾性分析了2009年至2019年期间在上海市肺科医院接受手术并经病理诊断为SCLC的患者。采用X-tile软件确定nS组的最佳临界值。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法和 Cox 回归分析比较不同组间的生存率。采用决策曲线分析法(DCA)评估标准化净获益:结果:共纳入 369 名患者。取样站的中位数为 6 个(范围 3-11),阳性站的中位数为 1 个(范围 0-7)。nS 组的最佳分界线为:nS0(未涉及任何站点)、nS1-2(涉及一个或两个站点)和 nS≥3 (涉及三个或更多站点)。总生存期(OS)和无复发生存期(RFS)在 nS 分类中的所有相邻类别中均存在统计学差异(P 结论:我们的队列研究表明,nS 0 和 nS ≥ 3 是导致癌症复发的主要因素:我们的队列研究表明,在预测 SCLC 患者的生存率方面,nS 可能是比 pN 更优越的指标,值得在今后定义 N 类别时加以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Pulmonary Medicine
BMC Pulmonary Medicine RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
423
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pulmonary Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of pulmonary and associated disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信