A grading system combining architectural features and mitotic count predicts recurrence in stage i lung adenocarcinoma

Modern Pathology

Volumn 25, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1117-1127

  Kadota, Kyuichi ^a,b   Suzuki, Kei ^a   Kachala, Stefan S ^a   Zabor, Emily C ^a   Sima, Camelia S ^a   Moreira, Andre L ^a   Yoshizawa, Akihiko ^a,c   Riely, Gregory J ^a   Rusch, Valerie W ^a   Adusumilli, Prasad S ^a   Travis, William D ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b KAGAWA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c SHINSHU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

architectural grade; histologic subtype; lung adenocarcinoma; mitosis; recurrence

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INVASION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CELL NUCLEUS; CELL SHAPE; CELL SIZE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; EARLY CANCER; FEMALE; GENDER; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MITOSIS INDEX; PAPILLARY CARCINOMA; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENCE RISK; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; TISSUE STRUCTURE; TUMOR NECROSIS;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; CELL NUCLEUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; KI-67 ANTIGEN; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MITOSIS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84864542897     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.58     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Devesa SS, Bray F, Vizcaino AP, et al. International lung cancer trends by histologic type: male:female differences diminishing and adenocarcinoma rates rising. Int J Cancer 2005;117:294-299.
2. Motoi N, Szoke J, Riely GJ, et al. Lung adenocarcinoma: modification of the 2004 WHO mixed subtype to include the major histologic subtype suggests correlations between papillary and micropapillary adenocarcinoma subtypes, EGFR mutations and gene expression analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:810-827.
3. Okudela K, Woo T, Mitsui H, et al. Morphometric profiling of lung cancers. Its association with clinicopathologic, biologic, and molecular genetic features. Am J Surg Pathol 2010;34:243-255.
4. Sica G, Yoshizawa A, Sima CS, et al. A grading system of lung adenocarcinomas based on histologic pattern is predictive of disease recurrence in stage I tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 2010;34:1155-1162.
5. Barletta JA, Yeap BY, Chirieac LR. Prognostic significance of grading in lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2010;116:659-669.
6. Kurokawa T, Matsuno Y, Noguchi M, et al. Surgically curable 00early00 adenocarcinoma in the periphery of the lung. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18:431-438.
7. Asamura H, Ando M, Matsuno Y, et al. Histopathologic prognostic factors in resected adenocarcinomas: is nuclear DNA content prognostic? Chest 1999;115:1018-1024.
8. Petersen I, Kotb WF, Friedrich KH, et al. Core classification of lung cancer: correlating nuclear size and mitoses with ploidy and clinicopathological parameters. Lung Cancer 2009;65:312-318.
9. Nakazato Y, Minami Y, Kobayashi H, et al. Nuclear grading of primary pulmonary adenocarcinomas: correlation between nuclear size and prognosis. Cancer 2010;116:2011-2019.
10. Kobayashi Y, Yokose T, Kawamura K, et al. Cytologic factors associated with prognosis in patients with peripheral adenocarcinoma of the lung measuring 3 cm or less in greatest dimension. Cancer 2005;105:44-51.
11. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, et al. International association for the study of lung cancer/American thoracic society/European respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:244-285.
12. Yoshizawa A, Motoi N, Riely GJ, et al. Impact of proposed IASLC/ATS/ERS classification of lung adenocarcinoma: prognostic subgroups and implications for further revision of staging based on analysis of 514 stage I cases. Mod Pathol 2011;24:653-664.
13. Yoshizawa A, Sumiyoshi S, Moreira AL, et al. Validation of the IASLC/ATS/ERS lung adenocarcinoma classification and use of comprehensive histologic subtyping for architectural grading in 432 Japanese patients. Mod Pathol 2011;24:429A.
14. Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, et al. Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 2005;18:1067-1078.
15. Thomas JS, Kerr GR, Jack WJ, et al. Histological grading of invasive breast carcinoma-A simplification of existing methods in a large conservation series with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 2009;55: 724-731.
16. Rioux-Leclercq N, Karakiewicz PI, Trinh QD, et al. Prognostic ability of simplified nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2007;109:868-874.
17. Epstein JI. The new World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) classification for TA, T1 bladder tumors: is it an improvement? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2003;47:83-89.
18. Lipponen PK, Eskelinen MJ, Jauhiainen K, et al. Independent clinical, histological and quantitative prognostic factors in transitional-cell bladder tumours, with special reference to mitotic frequency. Int J Cancer 1992;51:396-403.
19. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th edn. Springer: New York, NY, 2009, pp 253-270.
20. van Diest PJ, van der Wall E, Baak JP. Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:675-681.
21. Travis WD, RushW, Flieder DB, et al. Survival analysis of 200 pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors with clarification of criteria for atypical carcinoid and its separation from typical carcinoid. Am J Surg Pathol 1998;22:934-944.
22. Baak JP. Mitosis counting in tumors. Hum Pathol 1990;21:683-685.
23. Maezawa N, Tsuta K, Shibuki Y, et al. Cytopathologic factors can predict invasion in small-sized peripheral lung adenocarcinoma with a bronchioloalveolar carcinoma component. Cancer 2006;108:488-493.
24. Cerruto CA, Brun EA, Chang D, et al. Prognostic significance of histomorphologic parameters in diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:1654-1661.
25. Thompson LD. Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal gland Scaled Score (PASS) to separate benign from malignant neoplasms: a clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic study of 100 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:551-566.
26. Dong B, Sato M, Sakurada A, et al. Computed tomographic images reflect the biologic behavior of small lung adenocarcinoma: they correlate with cell proliferation, microvascularization, cell adhesion, degradation of extracellular matrix, and K-ras mutation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;130:733-739.
27. Guillou L, Coindre JM, Bonichon F, et al. Comparative study of the National Cancer Institute and French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group grading systems in a population of 410 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:350-362.
28. Hasegawa T, Yokoyama R, Matsuno Y, et al. Prognostic significance of histologic grade and nuclear expression of beta-catenin in synovial sarcoma. Hum Pathol 2001;32:257-263.
29. Poleri C, Morero JL, Nieva B, et al. Risk of recurrence in patients with surgically resected stage I non-small cell lung carcinoma: histopathologic and immunohistochemical analysis. Chest 2003;123:1858-1867.
30. Demarchi LM, Reis MM, Palomino SA, et al. Prognostic values of stromal proportion and PCNA, Ki-67, and p53 proteins in patients with resected adenocarcinoma of the lung. Mod Pathol 2000;13:511-520.
31. Kalogeraki A, Tzardi M, Zoras O, et al. Apoptosis and cell proliferation correlated with tumor grade in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. In Vivo 2010; 24:667-670.
32. Terasaki H, Niki T, Matsuno Y, et al. Lung adenocarcinoma with mixed bronchioloalveolar and invasive components: clinicopathological features, subclassification by extent of invasive foci, and immunohistochemical characterization. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27:937-951.
33. Yang Q, Mori I, Sakurai T, et al. Correlation between nuclear grade and biological prognostic variables in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2001;8:105-110.
34. Cross SS. Grading and scoring in histopathology. Histopathology 1998;33:99-106.
35. Barry M, Sinha SK, Leader MB, et al. Poor agreement in recognition of abnormal mitoses: requirement for standardized and robust definitions. Histopathology 2001;38:68-72.
36. Ikeguchi M, Sakatani T, Endo K, et al. Computerized nuclear morphometry is a useful technique for evaluating the high metastatic potential of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Cancer 1999;86:1944-1951.
37. Subramanian J, Simon R. Gene expression-based prognostic signatures in lung cancer: ready for clinical use? J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:464-474.
38. Bryant CM, Albertus DL, Kim S, et al. Clinically relevant characterization of lung adenocarcinoma subtypes based on cellular pathways: an international validation study. PLoS One 2010;5:e11712.
39. Felip E, Rosell R, Maestre JA, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28: 3138-3145.
40. Strauss GM, Herndon II JE, Maddaus MA, et al. Adjuvant paclitaxel plus carboplatin compared with observation in stage IB non-small-cell lung cancer: CALGB 9633 with the Cancer and Leukemia Group B, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study Groups. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5043-5051.