Ali Cevat Kutluk, Muzaffer Metin, Cemal Aker, Volkan Erdogu, Atilla Pekcolaklar, Ozkan Saydam, Deniz Sansar, Selin Onay

Prognostic factors and classification of pathological single and multiple N1 in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Aim: We compared outcomes between “single pathologic N1” (pN1a) and “multiple pathologic N1” (pN1b) patients and investigated whether all pN1b patient subgroups had the same outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 487 pN1 patients with NSCLC between 2010 and 2016. There were 284 single N1 (pN1a Group) and 203 multiple N1 (pN1b Group) patients. pN1b Group was divided into two subgroups; invasion of intraparenchymal lymph nodes (pN1b-without hilar group, n=48) and pN1b provided that one of the metastatic lymph nodes LN(s) has to be 10 and/ or 11 (pN1b with hilar group, n=155). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared between subgroups of N1 patients. Results: The mean age was 59.3 ± 8.3. The majority of the patients were male (n=462, 94.9%). The OS rate of pN1 patients was 53.2%, while the DFS rate was 48.8%. Multivariate analysis showed that adenocarcinoma histology (p=0.030), presence of pleural invasion (p=0.001) and perineural invasion (p=0.034) had worse effect on overall survival in pN1 patients. Both OS and DFS rates were statistically better in the pN1a Group than the pN1b Group (OS; 56.2% vs 48.3% p=0.03; DFS; 51.9% vs 44.4%, p=0.03). Although both OS and DFS rates were better in the pN1b-without hilar group patients than in pN1b-with hilar group, it was not significant (OS; 56.0% versus 44.5% p=0.187; DFS; 53.9% vs 40.6%, p=0.115). Conclusion: The pN1a Group had significantly better survival than the pN1b Group. However, the patients in the latter group without hilar LN(s) invasion exhibited better survival rates than those with hilar LN(s) involvement, although this was not significant. We think that the survival advantage in multiple N1 without hilar lymph node involvement should be evaluated with a larger patient series.

PDF

___

1. Wang J, Wu N, Lv C, et al. Recommended changes for the 8th edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer- the findings of a single-institution evaluation. Ann Transl Med 2020; 8:123.
2. Chairman DT, Carr PR. Staging of Cancer of Lung. In: Olivre HB, editor. Manual for Staging of cancer American Joint Committee on Cancer, 1st edn. Philadelphia:J.B Lippincott Company Publishers;1977. p.59-65.
3. Citak N, Aksoy Y, Isgorucu O, et al. A Comparison of the Currently Used Nodal Stage Classification With the Number of Metastatic Lymph Nodes and the Number of Metastatic Lymph Node Stations for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer; Which of These Is the Best Prognostic Factor? Zentralbl Chir 2019;24.Online ahead of print.
4. Iwasaki A, Shirakusa T, Miyoshi T, et al. Prognostic Significance of Subcarinal Station in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With T1-3 N2 Disease.Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;541:42-6.
5. Asamura H, Chansky K, Crowley J, et al. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Lung Cancer Staging Project: Proposals for the Revision of the N Descriptors in the Forthcoming 8th Edition of the TNM Classification for Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2015;10:1675-84.
6. Rami-Porta R, Call S, Dooms C, et al. Lung cancer staging: a concise update. Eur Respir J 2001;17:51.
7. Rusch VW, Asamura H, Watanabe H, et al. Members of IASLC Staging Committee. The IASLC lung cancer staging project: a proposal for a new international lymph node map in the forthcoming seventh edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2009;4:568-77.
8. Rusch VW, Crowley J, Giroux DJ, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: Proposals for the Revision of the N Descriptors in the Forthcoming Seventh Edition of the TNM Classification for Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2:603-12
9. Maeshima AM, Tsuta K, Asamura H, et al. Prognostic Implication of Metastasis Limited to Segmental (Level 13) and/or Subsegmental (Level 14) Lymph Nodes in Patients With Surgically Resected Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma and Pathologic N1 Lymph Node Status. Cancer 2012;118:4512-8.
10. Rami-PR, Asamura H, Travis WD, et al. Lung CancerMajor Changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual. Ca Cancer J Clin 2017;67:138-55.
11. Griff S, Taber S, Bauer TT, et al. Prognostic significance of the pattern of pathological N1 lymph node metastases for non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 2019;11:3449-58.
12. Van Velzen E, Snijder RJ, Brutel de la Rivière A, et al. Type of lymph node involvement influences survival rates of T1N1M0 non-small cell lung carcinoma. Lymph node involvement by direct extension compared with lobar and hilar node metastases. Chest 1996;110:1469-73.
13. Lee JG, Lee CY, Bae MK, et al. Validity of International Association for the Study Of Lung Cancer Proposals for the Revision of N Descriptors in Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:1421-6.
14. Marra A, Hillejan L, Zaboura G, et al. Pathologic N1 non-small cell lung cancer: correlation between pattern of lymphatic spread and prognosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:543-53.
15. Eichhorn F, Klotz LV, Muley T, et al. Prognostic relevance of regional lymph-node distribution in patients with N1-positive non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective single-center analysis Lung Cancer 2019;138:95-101.
16. Demir A, Turna A, Kocaturk C, et al. Prognostic significance of surgical-pathologic N1 lymph node involvement in non-small cell lung cancer.Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1014-22.
17. Riquet M, Manach D, Le Pimpec-Barthes F, et al. Prognostic significance of surgical-pathologic N1 disease in non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;67:1572-6.
18. Van Velzen E, Snijder RJ, Brutel de la Rivière A, et al. Lymph node type as a prognostic factor for survival in T2 N1 M0 non-small cell lung carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63:1436-40.