PurposeWe investigated the correlation between the number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) and correct staging and long-term survival in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by using large databases and determined the minimal threshold for the ELN count.MethodsData from a Chinese multi-institutional registry and the US SEER database on stage I to IIIA resected NSCLC (2001 to 2008) were analyzed for the relationship between the ELN count and stage migration and overall survival (OS) by using multivariable models. The series of the mean positive LNs, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were fitted with a LOWESS smoother, and the structural break points were determined by Chow test. The selected cut point was validated with the SEER 2009 cohort.ResultsAlthough the distribution of ELN count differed between the Chinese registry (n = 5,706) and the SEER database (n = 38,806; median, 15 versus seven, respectively), both cohorts exhibited significantly proportional increases from N0 to N1 and N2 disease (SEER OR, 1.038; China OR, 1.012; both P < .001) and serial improvements in OS (N0 disease: SEER HR, 0.986; China HR, 0.981; both P < .001; N1 and N2 disease: SEER HR, 0.989; China HR, 0.984; both P < .001) as the ELN count increased after controlling for confounders. Cut point analysis showed a threshold ELN count of 16 in patients with declared node-negative disease, which were examined in the derivation cohorts (SEER 2001 to 2008 HR, 0.830; China HR, 0.738) and validated in the SEER 2009 cohort (HR, 0.837).ConclusionA greater number of ELNs is associated with more-accurate node staging and better long-term survival of resected NSCLC. We recommend 16 ELNs as the cut point for evaluating the quality of LN examination or prognostic stratification postoperatively for patients with declared node-negative disease.
Lobectomy showed better survival than sublobar resection for patients with NSCLC ≤ 1 cm and > 1 to 2 cm. For patients in whom lobectomy is unsuitable, segmentectomy should be recommended for NSCLC > 1 to 2 cm, whereas surgeons could rely on surgical skills and the patient profile to decide between segmentectomy and wedge resection for NSCLC ≤ 1 cm.
These results provide preliminary evidence that STAS could be considered as a factor in a staging system to predict prognosis more precisely, especially in ADCs larger than 2 to 3 cm.
Alterations of gut microbiota have been implicated in multiple diseases including cancer. However, the gut microbiota spectrum in lung cancer remains largely unknown. Here we profiled the gut microbiota composition in a discovery cohort containing 42 early-stage lung cancer patients and 65 healthy individuals through the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing analysis. We found that lung cancer patients displayed a significant shift of microbiota composition in contrast to the healthy populations. To identify the optimal microbiota signature for noninvasive diagnosis purpose, we took advantage of Support-Vector Machine (SVM) and found that the predictive model with 13 operational taxonomic unit (OTU)-based biomarkers achieved a high accuracy in lung cancer prediction (area under curve, AUC = 97.6%). This signature performed reasonably well in the validation cohort (AUC = 76.4%), which contained 34 lung cancer patients and 40 healthy individuals. To facilitate potential clinical practice, we further constructed a 'patient discrimination index' (PDI), which largely retained the prediction efficiency in both the discovery cohort (AUC = 92.4%) and the validation cohort (AUC = 67.7%). Together, our study uncovered the microbiota spectrum of lung cancer patients and established the specific gut microbial signature for the potential prediction of the early-stage lung cancer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.