These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prognostic assessment of 1310 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who underwent complete resection from 1980 to 1993.
    Author: Inoue K, Sato M, Fujimura S, Sakurada A, Takahashi S, Usuda K, Kondo T, Tanita T, Handa M, Saito Y, Sagawa M.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1998 Sep; 116(3):407-11. PubMed ID: 9731782.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The TNM staging system of lung cancer is widely used as a guide for estimating prognosis and selecting treatment modality. In 1997, the International Union Against Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer have adopted a revised stage grouping for lung cancer. However, the validity of the new stage grouping has not been fully established. We investigated the prognoses of patients who had resection of non-small-cell lung cancer to confirm the validity of the revised classification. METHODS: A total of 1310 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer underwent complete resection and pathologic staging of the disease in our hospitals from 1980 through 1993. A pulmonary resection was performed with a systematic nodal dissection. The survivals were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method on the basis of overall deaths, and the survival curves were compared by log rank test. RESULTS: There were significant differences in survival between patients with T1 N0 M0 and T2 N0 M0 disease and between those with T1 N1 M0 and T2 N1 M0 disease. However, there was no significant difference between patients with T2 NO M0 disease and those with T1 N1 M0 disease. No significant difference in survival was observed among patients with T2 N1 M0, T3 NO M0, and T3 N1 M0 cancer. Patients with different invaded organs of T3 subdivision (pleura, chest wall, pericardium, or diaphragm) had a different prognosis. There was no significant difference between patients with T3 N2 M0 disease and those with stage IIIB disease. CONCLUSIONS: We supported most of the revision, such as dividing stage I, dividing stage II, and putting T3 N0 M0 to stage IIB. Furthermore, we found some candidates for a subsequent revision, such as putting T3 N1 M0 to stage IIB, putting T2 N0 M0 and T1 N1 M0 together, regarding diaphragm invasion as T4, and putting T3 N2 M0 to stage IIIB.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]