是时候(重新)定义非小细胞肺癌转移淋巴结的 N 分类了吗?

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Koen C. H. A. Verkoulen, Jean H. T. Daemen, Aimée J. P. M. Franssen, Juliette H. R. J. Degens, Karel W. E. Hulsewé, Yvonne L. J. Vissers, Erik R. de Loos
{"title":"是时候(重新)定义非小细胞肺癌转移淋巴结的 N 分类了吗?","authors":"Koen C. H. A. Verkoulen,&nbsp;Jean H. T. Daemen,&nbsp;Aimée J. P. M. Franssen,&nbsp;Juliette H. R. J. Degens,&nbsp;Karel W. E. Hulsewé,&nbsp;Yvonne L. J. Vissers,&nbsp;Erik R. de Loos","doi":"10.1111/crj.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In a recent issue of <i>The Clinical Respiratory Journal</i>, Guo et al. published a study that evaluated the correlation between the rate and number of resected metastatic lymph nodes and survival in patients undergoing an anatomical resection for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [<span>1</span>]. To date, nodal staging is key in the work-up and treatment guidance for NSCLC as it is an important determinant of survival [<span>2, 3</span>]. As opposed to some other cancer types, nodal staging for lung cancer is based on the anatomic location of the respective regional and mediastinal lymph node stations rather than the number of metastasis [<span>4-6</span>]. Hence, the ongoing debate concerning the potential prognostic value of the number and rate of lymph node metastases in NSCLC continues. Over the last decade, numerous studies have aimed to address this issue [<span>7-10</span>]. However, they are generally limited by their retrospective design and inherent bias, as well as methodological disparity [<span>11</span>]. How does the current report add to the evidence collected for over more than a decade?</p><p>Guo et al. carried out the first population-based study concerning this subject. They revealed that both the number and rate of positive lymph nodes after lymphadenectomy concomitant to an anatomical lung parenchyma resection are a predictor for overall survival, independent of the anatomical location of the nodal station that is affected, being either N1 or N2. These results are in line with prior retrospective studies and a recently published meta-analysis [<span>8, 10, 12</span>]. However, the number and rate of metastatic lymph nodes was only examined in postoperative patients that underwent lymphadenectomy, in whom the lymph nodes were completely dissected (defined as examination of more than 15 dissected lymph nodes) instead of biopsied stations. Thus, these results are only applicable as a prognostic tool and in treatment decision-making processes for postoperative patients. To be of an even greater importance for treatment plan composition, for example, one should repeat this study for preoperative clinical lymph node staging (cTNM) using minimally invasive staging techniques like endosonographic lymph node staging (EUS/EBUS) or surgical video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) or video-assisted mediastinoscopic lymphadenectomy (VAMLA). However, a recent publication showed in a noninferiority study that VAMLA might not be of added value in patients that underwent systemic EUS/EBUS [<span>13</span>]. Additionally, VAM/VAMLA or EUS is mainly used to assess N2 nodes. Hence, the vast majority of metastatic N1 nodes cannot be evaluated through these techniques. These drawbacks illustrate the challenges of the current TNM classification, and lymph node staging, especially for clinical lymph node staging. The sensitivity of preoperative lymph node staging modalities like (PET)-CT scan and EUS/EBUS ranges from 20% to 70%, resulting in a relatively high rate of unforeseen N2 disease [<span>14</span>]. The sensitivity of invasive mediastinal staging like VAM/VAMLA ranges from 64% to 90%, which is higher, but is still prone to the fact that mainly only N2 nodes can be assessed [<span>15, 16</span>]. So, the method used by Guo et al. might not be applicable to clinical N staging (cN), but the current preoperative staging modalities are far from perfect either. This makes it difficult to redefine the cN-category of the cTNM classification according to rate and number of metastatic lymph nodes, regardless of their location.</p><p>Approaches to redefine the N-category of the TNM staging system have been proposed in the past. Examples are the nodal zone concept, single- or multi-station N1 and N2 disease, and the exact location of N1 or N2 metastatic nodes, in which more proximal affected nodes (closer to the mediastinum) connote worse prognosis [<span>11, 17</span>]. The type of N2 disease, that is, single level, multilevel, or bulky disease, has also been associated with survival outcomes and could be used to redefine the N-category [<span>18</span>]. However, these approaches for defining the N-category mostly only apply to postoperative patients like in the study of Guo et al. or are subject to the same drawbacks of targeted biopsies and VAM/VAMLA, which do not provide the opportunity to assess the total number and rate of metastatic lymph nodes, especially in N1 nodes. Hence, some even question whether a change of the N-category would even be for the better. In the end, the purpose of changing the N classification of the TNM classification should be about being able to better predict survival outcomes and, in turn, tailor treatment plans in a more patient-specific approach. A good example of the path to more patient-tailored treatment approaches is molecular testing. A technique that is used to detect gene mutations that play an important role in targeted therapy [<span>19</span>].</p><p>So, if we do want to continue the pursuit of improving the accuracy of nodal staging, more uniformity and clarity of the current guidelines is to be obtained. Disparities can be found in the European and American guidelines for preoperative lymph node staging. The revised European Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines for mediastinal staging recommend dissection of at least nodes 4L-R and 7 [<span>20</span>], whereas the American College of Chest Physicians guideline recommends dissection of at least 2L-R, 4L-R, and 7 [<span>21</span>]. In several national guidelines, including the Dutch guidelines, specific stations that should be dissected are not even specified [<span>22</span>].</p><p>Similar disparities in recommendations apply to intraoperative nodal staging. Guo et al. recommend dissection of at least 16 examined lymph nodes and excluded patients with &lt; 16 examined lymph nodes. A different study, however, recommended &gt; 10 examined lymph nodes instead of the 16 proposed by Guo et al. [<span>7</span>]. Another study found that survival improves increasingly when more lymph nodes are dissected during anatomical lung resection [<span>23</span>]. On the contrary, the benefit of lymph node dissection over sampling has, to date, not yet demonstrated to improve overall survival according to a meta-analysis [<span>24</span>]. Consequently, the disparity on examined lymph nodes during anatomical lung resection that is reported in these studies contributes to the confusion about intraoperative lymph node dissection. The reality of daily practice underlines this incongruence; from the Dutch national lung cancer audit, it can be deduced that in only a minority of patients, intraoperative lymph node sampling is performed according to guidelines [<span>25</span>].</p><p>In summary, the study of Guo et al. could partially aid in redefining the TNM classification and have an impact on adjuvant treatment modalities. This redefinition could be achieved by constructing less heterogeneous and more precise international guidelines on lymph node staging and by adhering and reporting according to these guidelines as well as possible. By doing so, this could also provide scientific opportunities, as research on this topic could be done in a more detailed and uniform manner.</p><p>Changing the TNM stage might be clinically relevant and could aid in future research endeavors. For the 9th edition of the TNM classification system, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has proposed different concepts that should be investigated to change the N-descriptor, like the aforementioned nodal zone concept and the number and exact location of lymph node metastases [<span>11</span>]. Integration of these concepts could be the path to more patient-tailored treatment approaches and thus yield better survival results. Whether the N descriptor of the TNM classification will be changed or not, improved standardization of the current guidelines, and adherence to them, would be a good first step in the direction of improved nodal staging and patient-tailored treatment modalities.</p><p>Because this is an invited editorial, no human or animal data were used, thus no ethical approvals or patient/animal consent applies to the draft of this manuscript.</p><p>The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare, and have all contributed to the draft of this manuscript.</p>","PeriodicalId":55247,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/crj.70016","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is It Time to (Re)define the N-Category for Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer?\",\"authors\":\"Koen C. H. A. Verkoulen,&nbsp;Jean H. T. Daemen,&nbsp;Aimée J. P. M. Franssen,&nbsp;Juliette H. R. J. Degens,&nbsp;Karel W. E. Hulsewé,&nbsp;Yvonne L. J. Vissers,&nbsp;Erik R. de Loos\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/crj.70016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In a recent issue of <i>The Clinical Respiratory Journal</i>, Guo et al. published a study that evaluated the correlation between the rate and number of resected metastatic lymph nodes and survival in patients undergoing an anatomical resection for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [<span>1</span>]. To date, nodal staging is key in the work-up and treatment guidance for NSCLC as it is an important determinant of survival [<span>2, 3</span>]. As opposed to some other cancer types, nodal staging for lung cancer is based on the anatomic location of the respective regional and mediastinal lymph node stations rather than the number of metastasis [<span>4-6</span>]. Hence, the ongoing debate concerning the potential prognostic value of the number and rate of lymph node metastases in NSCLC continues. Over the last decade, numerous studies have aimed to address this issue [<span>7-10</span>]. However, they are generally limited by their retrospective design and inherent bias, as well as methodological disparity [<span>11</span>]. How does the current report add to the evidence collected for over more than a decade?</p><p>Guo et al. carried out the first population-based study concerning this subject. They revealed that both the number and rate of positive lymph nodes after lymphadenectomy concomitant to an anatomical lung parenchyma resection are a predictor for overall survival, independent of the anatomical location of the nodal station that is affected, being either N1 or N2. These results are in line with prior retrospective studies and a recently published meta-analysis [<span>8, 10, 12</span>]. However, the number and rate of metastatic lymph nodes was only examined in postoperative patients that underwent lymphadenectomy, in whom the lymph nodes were completely dissected (defined as examination of more than 15 dissected lymph nodes) instead of biopsied stations. Thus, these results are only applicable as a prognostic tool and in treatment decision-making processes for postoperative patients. To be of an even greater importance for treatment plan composition, for example, one should repeat this study for preoperative clinical lymph node staging (cTNM) using minimally invasive staging techniques like endosonographic lymph node staging (EUS/EBUS) or surgical video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) or video-assisted mediastinoscopic lymphadenectomy (VAMLA). However, a recent publication showed in a noninferiority study that VAMLA might not be of added value in patients that underwent systemic EUS/EBUS [<span>13</span>]. Additionally, VAM/VAMLA or EUS is mainly used to assess N2 nodes. Hence, the vast majority of metastatic N1 nodes cannot be evaluated through these techniques. These drawbacks illustrate the challenges of the current TNM classification, and lymph node staging, especially for clinical lymph node staging. The sensitivity of preoperative lymph node staging modalities like (PET)-CT scan and EUS/EBUS ranges from 20% to 70%, resulting in a relatively high rate of unforeseen N2 disease [<span>14</span>]. The sensitivity of invasive mediastinal staging like VAM/VAMLA ranges from 64% to 90%, which is higher, but is still prone to the fact that mainly only N2 nodes can be assessed [<span>15, 16</span>]. So, the method used by Guo et al. might not be applicable to clinical N staging (cN), but the current preoperative staging modalities are far from perfect either. This makes it difficult to redefine the cN-category of the cTNM classification according to rate and number of metastatic lymph nodes, regardless of their location.</p><p>Approaches to redefine the N-category of the TNM staging system have been proposed in the past. Examples are the nodal zone concept, single- or multi-station N1 and N2 disease, and the exact location of N1 or N2 metastatic nodes, in which more proximal affected nodes (closer to the mediastinum) connote worse prognosis [<span>11, 17</span>]. The type of N2 disease, that is, single level, multilevel, or bulky disease, has also been associated with survival outcomes and could be used to redefine the N-category [<span>18</span>]. However, these approaches for defining the N-category mostly only apply to postoperative patients like in the study of Guo et al. or are subject to the same drawbacks of targeted biopsies and VAM/VAMLA, which do not provide the opportunity to assess the total number and rate of metastatic lymph nodes, especially in N1 nodes. Hence, some even question whether a change of the N-category would even be for the better. In the end, the purpose of changing the N classification of the TNM classification should be about being able to better predict survival outcomes and, in turn, tailor treatment plans in a more patient-specific approach. A good example of the path to more patient-tailored treatment approaches is molecular testing. A technique that is used to detect gene mutations that play an important role in targeted therapy [<span>19</span>].</p><p>So, if we do want to continue the pursuit of improving the accuracy of nodal staging, more uniformity and clarity of the current guidelines is to be obtained. Disparities can be found in the European and American guidelines for preoperative lymph node staging. The revised European Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines for mediastinal staging recommend dissection of at least nodes 4L-R and 7 [<span>20</span>], whereas the American College of Chest Physicians guideline recommends dissection of at least 2L-R, 4L-R, and 7 [<span>21</span>]. In several national guidelines, including the Dutch guidelines, specific stations that should be dissected are not even specified [<span>22</span>].</p><p>Similar disparities in recommendations apply to intraoperative nodal staging. Guo et al. recommend dissection of at least 16 examined lymph nodes and excluded patients with &lt; 16 examined lymph nodes. A different study, however, recommended &gt; 10 examined lymph nodes instead of the 16 proposed by Guo et al. [<span>7</span>]. Another study found that survival improves increasingly when more lymph nodes are dissected during anatomical lung resection [<span>23</span>]. On the contrary, the benefit of lymph node dissection over sampling has, to date, not yet demonstrated to improve overall survival according to a meta-analysis [<span>24</span>]. Consequently, the disparity on examined lymph nodes during anatomical lung resection that is reported in these studies contributes to the confusion about intraoperative lymph node dissection. The reality of daily practice underlines this incongruence; from the Dutch national lung cancer audit, it can be deduced that in only a minority of patients, intraoperative lymph node sampling is performed according to guidelines [<span>25</span>].</p><p>In summary, the study of Guo et al. could partially aid in redefining the TNM classification and have an impact on adjuvant treatment modalities. This redefinition could be achieved by constructing less heterogeneous and more precise international guidelines on lymph node staging and by adhering and reporting according to these guidelines as well as possible. By doing so, this could also provide scientific opportunities, as research on this topic could be done in a more detailed and uniform manner.</p><p>Changing the TNM stage might be clinically relevant and could aid in future research endeavors. For the 9th edition of the TNM classification system, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has proposed different concepts that should be investigated to change the N-descriptor, like the aforementioned nodal zone concept and the number and exact location of lymph node metastases [<span>11</span>]. Integration of these concepts could be the path to more patient-tailored treatment approaches and thus yield better survival results. Whether the N descriptor of the TNM classification will be changed or not, improved standardization of the current guidelines, and adherence to them, would be a good first step in the direction of improved nodal staging and patient-tailored treatment modalities.</p><p>Because this is an invited editorial, no human or animal data were used, thus no ethical approvals or patient/animal consent applies to the draft of this manuscript.</p><p>The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare, and have all contributed to the draft of this manuscript.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/crj.70016\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crj.70016\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crj.70016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲和美国的术前淋巴结分期指南存在差异。修订后的欧洲胸外科医师协会纵隔分期指南建议至少清扫 4L-R 和 7 号淋巴结[20],而美国胸科医师学会指南则建议至少清扫 2L-R、4L-R 和 7 号淋巴结[21]。包括荷兰指南在内的一些国家指南甚至没有明确指出应切除的具体部位[22]。Guo 等人建议至少清扫 16 个检查淋巴结,并排除了 16 个检查淋巴结的患者。但另一项研究建议切除 10 个淋巴结,而不是 Guo 等人提出的 16 个[7]。另一项研究发现,在解剖性肺切除术中,如果切除的淋巴结越多,生存率越高[23]。相反,根据一项荟萃分析[24],迄今为止,淋巴结清扫比取样更有利于提高总生存率。因此,这些研究报告中关于解剖肺切除术中淋巴结检查的差异导致了术中淋巴结清扫的混乱。日常实践也凸显了这种不一致;从荷兰全国肺癌审计中可以推断出,只有少数患者的术中淋巴结取样是根据指南进行的[25]。要实现这种重新定义,就必须在淋巴结分期方面制定更少异质性、更精确的国际指南,并尽可能遵守和报告这些指南。改变 TNM 分期可能与临床相关,并有助于未来的研究工作。在第 9 版 TNM 分类系统中,国际肺癌研究协会提出了不同的概念,如前面提到的结节区概念以及淋巴结转移的数量和确切位置[11]。这些概念的整合可能会成为更适合患者的治疗方法,从而获得更好的生存结果。无论 TNM 分类的 N 描述符是否会改变,提高现行指南的标准化程度并遵守这些指南,都将是朝着改进结节分期和适合患者的治疗模式方向迈出的良好的第一步。由于这是一篇特邀社论,没有使用任何人类或动物数据,因此本稿件草案不适用伦理审批或患者/动物同意书。作者对工作的所有方面负责,确保与工作任何部分的准确性或完整性有关的问题得到妥善调查和解决。作者无利益冲突需要声明,他们都为本手稿的撰写做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is It Time to (Re)define the N-Category for Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer?

In a recent issue of The Clinical Respiratory Journal, Guo et al. published a study that evaluated the correlation between the rate and number of resected metastatic lymph nodes and survival in patients undergoing an anatomical resection for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [1]. To date, nodal staging is key in the work-up and treatment guidance for NSCLC as it is an important determinant of survival [2, 3]. As opposed to some other cancer types, nodal staging for lung cancer is based on the anatomic location of the respective regional and mediastinal lymph node stations rather than the number of metastasis [4-6]. Hence, the ongoing debate concerning the potential prognostic value of the number and rate of lymph node metastases in NSCLC continues. Over the last decade, numerous studies have aimed to address this issue [7-10]. However, they are generally limited by their retrospective design and inherent bias, as well as methodological disparity [11]. How does the current report add to the evidence collected for over more than a decade?

Guo et al. carried out the first population-based study concerning this subject. They revealed that both the number and rate of positive lymph nodes after lymphadenectomy concomitant to an anatomical lung parenchyma resection are a predictor for overall survival, independent of the anatomical location of the nodal station that is affected, being either N1 or N2. These results are in line with prior retrospective studies and a recently published meta-analysis [8, 10, 12]. However, the number and rate of metastatic lymph nodes was only examined in postoperative patients that underwent lymphadenectomy, in whom the lymph nodes were completely dissected (defined as examination of more than 15 dissected lymph nodes) instead of biopsied stations. Thus, these results are only applicable as a prognostic tool and in treatment decision-making processes for postoperative patients. To be of an even greater importance for treatment plan composition, for example, one should repeat this study for preoperative clinical lymph node staging (cTNM) using minimally invasive staging techniques like endosonographic lymph node staging (EUS/EBUS) or surgical video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) or video-assisted mediastinoscopic lymphadenectomy (VAMLA). However, a recent publication showed in a noninferiority study that VAMLA might not be of added value in patients that underwent systemic EUS/EBUS [13]. Additionally, VAM/VAMLA or EUS is mainly used to assess N2 nodes. Hence, the vast majority of metastatic N1 nodes cannot be evaluated through these techniques. These drawbacks illustrate the challenges of the current TNM classification, and lymph node staging, especially for clinical lymph node staging. The sensitivity of preoperative lymph node staging modalities like (PET)-CT scan and EUS/EBUS ranges from 20% to 70%, resulting in a relatively high rate of unforeseen N2 disease [14]. The sensitivity of invasive mediastinal staging like VAM/VAMLA ranges from 64% to 90%, which is higher, but is still prone to the fact that mainly only N2 nodes can be assessed [15, 16]. So, the method used by Guo et al. might not be applicable to clinical N staging (cN), but the current preoperative staging modalities are far from perfect either. This makes it difficult to redefine the cN-category of the cTNM classification according to rate and number of metastatic lymph nodes, regardless of their location.

Approaches to redefine the N-category of the TNM staging system have been proposed in the past. Examples are the nodal zone concept, single- or multi-station N1 and N2 disease, and the exact location of N1 or N2 metastatic nodes, in which more proximal affected nodes (closer to the mediastinum) connote worse prognosis [11, 17]. The type of N2 disease, that is, single level, multilevel, or bulky disease, has also been associated with survival outcomes and could be used to redefine the N-category [18]. However, these approaches for defining the N-category mostly only apply to postoperative patients like in the study of Guo et al. or are subject to the same drawbacks of targeted biopsies and VAM/VAMLA, which do not provide the opportunity to assess the total number and rate of metastatic lymph nodes, especially in N1 nodes. Hence, some even question whether a change of the N-category would even be for the better. In the end, the purpose of changing the N classification of the TNM classification should be about being able to better predict survival outcomes and, in turn, tailor treatment plans in a more patient-specific approach. A good example of the path to more patient-tailored treatment approaches is molecular testing. A technique that is used to detect gene mutations that play an important role in targeted therapy [19].

So, if we do want to continue the pursuit of improving the accuracy of nodal staging, more uniformity and clarity of the current guidelines is to be obtained. Disparities can be found in the European and American guidelines for preoperative lymph node staging. The revised European Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines for mediastinal staging recommend dissection of at least nodes 4L-R and 7 [20], whereas the American College of Chest Physicians guideline recommends dissection of at least 2L-R, 4L-R, and 7 [21]. In several national guidelines, including the Dutch guidelines, specific stations that should be dissected are not even specified [22].

Similar disparities in recommendations apply to intraoperative nodal staging. Guo et al. recommend dissection of at least 16 examined lymph nodes and excluded patients with < 16 examined lymph nodes. A different study, however, recommended > 10 examined lymph nodes instead of the 16 proposed by Guo et al. [7]. Another study found that survival improves increasingly when more lymph nodes are dissected during anatomical lung resection [23]. On the contrary, the benefit of lymph node dissection over sampling has, to date, not yet demonstrated to improve overall survival according to a meta-analysis [24]. Consequently, the disparity on examined lymph nodes during anatomical lung resection that is reported in these studies contributes to the confusion about intraoperative lymph node dissection. The reality of daily practice underlines this incongruence; from the Dutch national lung cancer audit, it can be deduced that in only a minority of patients, intraoperative lymph node sampling is performed according to guidelines [25].

In summary, the study of Guo et al. could partially aid in redefining the TNM classification and have an impact on adjuvant treatment modalities. This redefinition could be achieved by constructing less heterogeneous and more precise international guidelines on lymph node staging and by adhering and reporting according to these guidelines as well as possible. By doing so, this could also provide scientific opportunities, as research on this topic could be done in a more detailed and uniform manner.

Changing the TNM stage might be clinically relevant and could aid in future research endeavors. For the 9th edition of the TNM classification system, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has proposed different concepts that should be investigated to change the N-descriptor, like the aforementioned nodal zone concept and the number and exact location of lymph node metastases [11]. Integration of these concepts could be the path to more patient-tailored treatment approaches and thus yield better survival results. Whether the N descriptor of the TNM classification will be changed or not, improved standardization of the current guidelines, and adherence to them, would be a good first step in the direction of improved nodal staging and patient-tailored treatment modalities.

Because this is an invited editorial, no human or animal data were used, thus no ethical approvals or patient/animal consent applies to the draft of this manuscript.

The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare, and have all contributed to the draft of this manuscript.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Respiratory Journal
Clinical Respiratory Journal 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Overview Effective with the 2016 volume, this journal will be published in an online-only format. Aims and Scope The Clinical Respiratory Journal (CRJ) provides a forum for clinical research in all areas of respiratory medicine from clinical lung disease to basic research relevant to the clinic. We publish original research, review articles, case studies, editorials and book reviews in all areas of clinical lung disease including: Asthma Allergy COPD Non-invasive ventilation Sleep related breathing disorders Interstitial lung diseases Lung cancer Clinical genetics Rhinitis Airway and lung infection Epidemiology Pediatrics CRJ provides a fast-track service for selected Phase II and Phase III trial studies. Keywords Clinical Respiratory Journal, respiratory, pulmonary, medicine, clinical, lung disease, Abstracting and Indexing Information Academic Search (EBSCO Publishing) Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing) Embase (Elsevier) Health & Medical Collection (ProQuest) Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest) HEED: Health Economic Evaluations Database (Wiley-Blackwell) Hospital Premium Collection (ProQuest) Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics) MEDLINE/PubMed (NLM) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) Science Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate Analytics) SCOPUS (Elsevier)
×
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