Advertisement

The Effect of Resection Margin Distance and Invasive Component Size on Recurrence After Sublobar Resection in Patients With Small (≤2 Cm) Lung Adenocarcinoma

  • Youngkyu MoonEmail author
  • Jae Kil Park
  • Kyo Young Lee
Original Scientific Report
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Background

When performing sublobar resection for lung cancer, the margin distance should exceed the tumor size. However, instead of total tumor size, the 8th edition TNM staging system has adopted the size of invasive component for the T stage. The aim of this study was to determine whether the prognosis was satisfactory when the resection margin distance was greater than the invasive component size instead of the total tumor size.

Methods

From 2008 to 2017, 193 consecutive patients were diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma (invasive component size ≤2 cm) and underwent sublobar resection. We analyzed risk factors for recurrence using clinicopathological factors including margin/invasive component ratio (resection margin distance/invasive component size).

Results

Mean tumor size was 1.4 (±0.5) cm and the mean invasive component size was 0.8 cm (±0.5). In the multivariate analysis, neither resection margin distance (cm) nor margin/tumor ratio (resection margin distance/tumor size) was significant risk factors for recurrence. On the other hand, the margin/invasive component ratio (hazard ratio =0.035, p = 0.043) and the SUVmax (hazard ratio =1.993, p = 0.033) were significant risk factors for recurrence.

Conclusions

When sublobar resection is performed for small (invasive component size ≤2 cm) adenocarcinomas of the lung, the resection margin distance should be larger than the invasive component size. Sublobar resection is not an appropriate treatment for lung adenocarcinoma with high SUVmax.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital at the Catholic University of Korea. This research was not supported by outside funds.

Compliance with ethical standard

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Ginsberg RJ, Rubinstein LV (1995) Randomized trial of lobectomy versus limited resection for T1 N0 non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer Study Group Ann Thorac Surg 60:615–622 discussion 622-613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cao C, Chandrakumar D, Gupta S et al (2015) Could less be more?—A systematic review and meta-analysis of sublobar resections versus lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer according to patient selection. Lung Cancer 89:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eguchi T, Kadota K, Park BJ et al (2014) The new IASLC-ATS-ERS lung adenocarcinoma classification: what the surgeon should know. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 26:210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sawabata N, Ohta M, Matsumura A et al (2004) Optimal distance of malignant negative margin in excision of nonsmall cell lung cancer: a multicenter prospective study. Ann Thorac Surg 77:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Travis WD, Asamura H, Bankier AA et al (2016) The IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for coding t categories for subsolid nodules and assessment of tumor size in part-solid tumors in the forthcoming eighth edition of the tnm classification of lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 11:1204–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rami-Porta R, Asamura H, Travis WD et al (2017) Lung cancer—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67:138–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rami-Porta R, Eberhardt WEE (2018) Clinical implications of the innovations in the primary tumour and metastasis of the 8(th) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 10:S2682–S2685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moon Y, Lee KY, Park JK (2018) Margin width of resected lepidic lung cancer does not affect recurrence after sublobar resection. World J Surg 42:1449–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4291-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moon Y, Lee KY, Moon SW et al (2017) Sublobar resection margin width does not affect recurrence of clinical N0 non-small cell lung cancer presenting as GGO-predominant nodule of 3 cm or less. World J Surg 41:472–479.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3743-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldstraw P, Chansky K, Crowley J et al (2016) The IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (eighth) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 11:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldstein NS, Ferkowicz M, Kestin L et al (2003) Wedge resection margin distances and residual adenocarcinoma in lobectomy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 120:720–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M et al (2011) International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 6:244–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Altorki NK, Kamel MK, Narula N et al (2016) Anatomical segmentectomy and wedge resections are associated with comparable outcomes for patients with Small cT1N0 non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 11:1984–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moon Y, Sung SW, Moon SW et al (2016) Risk factors for recurrence after sublobar resection in patients with small (2 cm or less) non-small cell lung cancer presenting as a solid-predominant tumor on chest computed tomography. J Thorac Dis 8:2018–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghaly G, Rahouma M, Kamel MK et al (2017) Clinical predictors of nodal metastases in peripherally clinical T1a N0 non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 104:1153–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moon Y, Kim KS, Lee KY et al (2016) Clinicopathologic factors associated with occult lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically diagnosed N0 lung adenocarcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 101:1928–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ye B, Cheng M, Li W et al (2014) Predictive factors for lymph node metastasis in clinical stage IA lung adenocarcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 98:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miyasaka Y, Suzuki K, Takamochi K et al (2013) The maximum standardized uptake value of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography of the primary tumour is a good predictor of pathological nodal involvement in clinical N0 non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 44:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Okada M, Koike T, Higashiyama M et al (2006) Radical sublobar resection for small-sized non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 132:769–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koike T, Kitahara A, Sato S et al (2016) Lobectomy versus segmentectomy in radiologically pure solid small-sized non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 101:1354–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blasberg JD, Pass HI, Donington JS (2010) Sublobar resection: a movement from the Lung Cancer Study Group. J Thorac Oncol 5:1583–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamura K, Saji H, Nakajima R et al (2010) A phase III randomized trial of lobectomy versus limited resection for small-sized peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (JCOG0802/WJOG4607L). Jpn J Clin Oncol 40:271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tremblay L, Deslauriers J (2013) What is the most practical, optimal, and cost effective method for performing follow-up after lung cancer surgery, and by whom should it be done? Thorac Surg Clin 23:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kiankhooy A, Taylor MD, LaPar DJ et al (2014) Predictors of early recurrence for node-negative t1 to t2b non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 98:1175–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery. Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Hospital Pathology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations