基于倾向得分匹配肺粘液腺癌的临床、影像及病理的相关分析
Clinical, Imaging and Pathological Analysis of Pulmonary Mucinous Adenocarcinoma Based on Propensity Score Matching
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2024.1441132, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 16  浏览: 33 
作者: 王子鹏, 李少翔, 陈 胜:青岛大学医学部,山东 青岛;矫文捷*:青岛大学附属医院胸外科,山东 青岛
关键词: 肺粘液腺癌倾向得分匹配回归分析预测Pulmonary Mucinous Adenocarcinoma Propensity Score Matching Regression Analysis Prediction
摘要: 目的:本研究比较了肺粘液腺癌与非粘液腺癌的临床、影像学及病理特征,同时探讨了肺粘液腺癌的预测价值。方法:本研究收集了自2017年3月至2023年3月期间在青岛大学附属医院胸外科接受手术治疗且临床分期为I~II期的患者976名(术后病理为肺粘液腺癌患者292名,非粘液腺癌患者684名),回顾性地分析了所有患者的临床基线资料、影像学特征资料、组织病理学特征资料等,并进行倾向得分匹配(propensity score matching, PSM),通过二元logistic分析进一步探索鉴别肺粘液腺癌与非粘液腺癌的影响因素,并绘制出受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic curve, ROC)曲线评价鉴别的性能。所有统计学分析均使用SPSS软件(版本:25.0)进行,所有统计检验均为双侧检验。P < 0.05被认为存在统计学差异。结果:单因素分析显示,一般资料方面,两组在年龄上(P = 0.042)和吸烟史上(P = 0.045)有统计学差异。而两组在年龄方面没有明显的统计学差异(P = 0.482),术前血液检测中淋巴细胞水平(P < 0.001)与术前NLR (P < 0.001)两组间存在显著差异。影像学资料上提示两组之间在肿瘤位置(P < 0.001)、影像学分类(P < 0.001)、影像学肿瘤最大径(P < 0.001)、肿瘤实性成分最大径(P < 0.001)、CTR (P < 0.001)、支气管充气征(P < 0.001)、空泡征(P < 0.001)、胸膜牵拉征(P < 0.001)上有着显著差异。相较于非粘液腺癌发生于上叶,粘液腺癌组多发生于肺下叶,且更多以实性结节为主;更多的患者出现支气管充气征、空洞征,而胸膜牵拉征在非粘液腺癌患者的影像学图像上更易发现。病理学相关资料结果提示两组患者在是否存在实体、乳头成分(P = 0.90),是否侵犯脏层胸膜(P = 0.696),解剖部位(P = 0.125)均无显著统计学差异。除此之外病理T分期(P < 0.001)、病理N分期(P < 0.001)、病理TNM分期(P < 0.001)、手术清扫淋巴结的个数(P < 0.001)、术后病理显示阳性淋巴结的组数(P = 0.008)、阳性淋巴结的总个数(P = 0.009)均有显著统计学差异。PSM后两组均有292名患者纳入研究,两组患者在年龄(P = 0.885)、性别(P = 0.665)、吸烟人数(P = 0.756)等基本资料上均无统计学差异,匹配性能良好。匹配后两组间术前血清CEA (P = 0.014)出现了差异,两组术后病理显示阳性淋巴结的组数(P = 0.114)、阳性淋巴结的总个数(P = 0.096)无明显差异,其余结果较匹配前相似。多因素分析显示实性结节(P = 0.018)、影像学肿瘤最大径(P = 0.004)、CTR (P < 0.001)、胸膜牵拉征(P < 0.001)、磨玻璃结节(P = 0.001)、支气管充气征(P < 0.001)、空洞征(P < 0.001)、Ki-67 (P < 0.001)均是鉴别两者的影响因素。ROC曲线结果表示在区分两组患者方面具有较好的性能,曲线下面积(AUC)为0.86。结论:再去除两组在年龄、吸烟史等混杂因素影响后,与非粘液腺癌相比,肺粘液腺癌更多存在影像学特征且以实性成分为主,影像学最大径更大,CTR更高甚至为1。
Abstract: Objective: This study compared the clinical, imaging and pathological characteristics of pulmonary mucinous adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma, and also explored the predictive value of pulmonary mucinous adenocarcinoma. Methods: This study collected 976 patients who underwent surgical treatment in the Thoracic Surgery Department of Qingdao University Affiliated Hospital from March 2017 to March 2023 and were clinically staged I-II (292 patients whose postoperative pathology was pulmonary mucinous adenocarcinoma and 684 patients whose postoperative pathology was pulmonary non-mucinous adenocarcinoma). The clinical baseline data, imaging characteristics data, histopathological characteristics data of all patients were retrospectively analyzed, and propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. The analysis further explored the factors influencing the differentiation of pulmonary mucinous adenocarcinoma and pulmonary non-mucinous adenocarcinoma, and drew a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to evaluate the performance of identification. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version: 25.0), and all statistical tests were two-sided. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically different. Results: Univariate analysis showed that in terms of general information, there were statistical differences between the two groups in age (P = 0.042) and smoking history (P = 0.045). There was no significant statistical difference in gender between the two groups (P = 0.482). There were significant differences in lymphocyte levels in preoperative blood testing (P < 0.001) and preoperative NLR (P < 0.001). Imaging data indicated that there are differences between the two groups in terms of tumor location (P < 0.001), imaging classification (P < 0.001), imaging tumor maximum diameter (P < 0.001), tumor solid component maximum diameter (P < 0.001). There were significant differences in CTR (P < 0.001), bronchial air sign (P < 0.001), vacuole sign (P < 0.001), and pleural traction sign (P < 0.001). Compared with pulmonary non-mucinous adenocarcinoma group that occurs in the upper lobe, pulmonary mucinous adenocarcinoma group mostly occurs in the lower lobe of the lung. Besides, more patients had more solid nodules and air bronchus signs, cavitation signs. However, pleural traction signs were more commonly seen on imaging images of patients with pulmonary non-mucinous adenocarcinoma. Pathology-related data showed that there were no significant statistical differences between the two groups of patients in the presence of solid or papillary components (P = 0.90), invasion of the visceral pleura (P = 0.696), and anatomical locations (P = 0.125). In addition, there were significant differences in pathological T stage (P < 0.001), pathological N stage (P < 0.001), pathological TNM stage (P < 0.001), the number of lymph nodes dissected by operation (P < 0.001), the number of positive lymph nodes after operation (P = 0.008) and the total number of positive lymph nodes (P = 0.009). After PSM, 292 patients were included in the study in both groups. There were no statistical differences between the two groups in basic information, such as age (P = 0.885), gender (P = 0.665), and number of smokers (P = 0.756). The matching performance was good. After matching, there was a difference in preoperative serum CEA (P = 0.014) between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the number of positive lymph nodes (P = 0.114) and the total number of positive lymph nodes (P = 0.096) in the postoperative pathology between the two groups. The remaining results were similar than before matching. Multivariate analysis showed solid nodules (P = 0.018), maximum diameter of imaging tumors (P = 0.004), CTR (P < 0.001), pleural traction sign (P < 0.001), ground-glass nodules (P = 0.001), air bronchus sign (P < 0.001), cavitation sign (P < 0.001), and Ki-67 (P < 0.001) were all influencing factors in identifying the two. The ROC curve results indicated good performance in distinguishing the two groups of patients, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86. Conclusion: After removing the influence of age, smoking history and other confounding factors in both groups, compared with pulmonary non-mucinous adenocarcinoma, pulmonary mucinous adenocarcinoma had more imaging features and was mainly solid components, with a larger maximum imaging diameter. The CTR is higher or even 1.
文章引用:王子鹏, 李少翔, 陈胜, 矫文捷. 基于倾向得分匹配肺粘液腺癌的临床、影像及病理的相关分析[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(4): 1115-1128. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2024.1441132

1. 引言

肺癌(lung cancer, LC)是目前中国发病率第一、世界发病率第二的癌症,仅次于乳腺癌,同时也是在中国和世界死亡率最高的癌症 [1] 。肺癌可被分为非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC)和小细胞肺癌,肺腺癌为最常见的病理类型,且它所占比例已超过肺癌的40%,目前它的发病率与死亡率仍在进一步提高 [1] [2] 。浸润性粘液腺癌以前称为粘液性细支气管肺泡癌(bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, BAC)是肺腺癌的一种亚型,由含有丰富胞浆内粘蛋白空泡的杯状和柱状肿瘤细胞组成,具有独特的临床、放射学、组织病理学和分子特征 [3] [4] 。与浸润性非粘液腺癌(invasive non-mucinous adenocarcinoma, INMA)相比,是一种相对罕见的腺癌,约占肺腺癌的2%~5% [5] 。

随着计算机断层扫描(computed tomography, CT)筛查的普及,越来越多的肺结节被早期发现,使得肺癌早期诊出率大大提高。根据影像学表现不同,肺结节可以分为纯磨玻璃结节、混合磨玻璃结节及实性结节 [6] 。研究表明,大部分肺粘液腺癌在CT上表现为大部分为实性或混合磨玻璃结节,极少为纯磨玻璃结节 [7] 。而临床上肺粘液腺癌以结节肿块型常见,与非粘液腺癌容易混淆 [8] 。肺粘液腺癌早期容易通过气腔播散而发生肺内转移,故早期诊断对于非粘液腺癌至关重要 [9] 。现阶段仅根据影像学特征对粘液腺癌患者的研究仍较局限,鲜有免疫学与粘液腺癌相关研究,且粘液腺癌的预后相对较差,而根据临床、影像及病理特征判断预后的研究较少 [10] ,且受样本量限制、组间差异等因素影响,研究仍有许多局限性。

因此本研究在样本进行倾向得分匹配的基础上,回顾性分析了两组患者的临床特征、影像学、病理学特征。从而为指导医生在临床中鉴别粘液腺癌、评估预后提供参考。

2. 研究对象与方法

2.1. 研究对象

检索搜集了自2017年3月至2023年3月期间在青岛大学附属医院胸外科接受手术治疗临床I~II期患者共1210名,其中术后病理粘液腺癌患者350名,非粘液腺癌患者860名。

纳入标准:

(一) 术前行胸部CT检查,术后病理为粘液腺癌或非粘液腺癌的患者,且标本行免疫组化检验,术后病理有PD-L1相关报告。

(二) 行规范手术治疗,且既往无肺部手术史

(三) 患者身体情况较好,无其他特殊重大疾病

排除标准:

(一) 缺乏影像资料或影像资料不全的患者

(二) 影像学表现为类似肺炎实变区的患者

(三) 随访过程中失访的患者

共纳入粘液腺癌患者292名,非粘液腺癌患者684名。使用PSM进行1:1最邻近匹配法,最终纳入粘液腺癌患者和肺粘液腺癌患者各292名,见图1

Figure 1. Flowchart of inclusion and exclusion of research subjects

图1. 研究对象纳入排除流程图

2.2. 研究方法

2.2.1. 患者一般临床资料评价

本研究我们收集了包括患者性别、年龄、吸烟史以及术前血癌胚抗原(carcinoembryonic antigen, CEA)水平、中性粒细胞计数、淋巴细胞计数、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, NLR)、乳酸脱氢酶等临床资料。

2.2.2. 患者影像学资料评价

本研究由两位有经验的放射科医生分别对所有入组患者的术前CT图像进行了回顾。在CT肺窗中显示肺肿瘤直径最大的影像层面对其直径大小进行测量,若肺结节为混合磨玻璃结节,则对实性成分最大直径进行测量。肿瘤实性成分占比(consolidation tumor ratio, CTR)被定义为CT肺窗中实性成分最大直径与肿瘤最大直径之比。除此之外,还记录了病灶位置、空泡或空洞征、胸膜牵拉征、支气管充气征、分叶征和毛刺征。

2.2.3. 患者病理学资料评价

依据国际肺癌研究学会/美国胸科学会/欧洲呼吸学会国际肺腺癌多学科分类(International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society, IASLC/ATS/ERS)的新病理分类标准,所有入组患者的术后病理标本由两位有经验的病理科医生进行解读。所有的手术标本均进行福尔马林固定和石蜡包埋,并用苏木精和伊红染色,通过显微镜进行检查和评估。PD-L1检测平台为Ventana SP263、Dako 22C3,免疫组织化学结果的解释基于两位病理学家的共识。我们记录了是否存在微乳头和实性(micropapillary and solid, MPSOL)成分、是否侵及脏层胸膜、经手术清扫的淋巴结病理结果等信息。当病理科医师之间出现分类分歧时,需达成共识以做出最终决定。

2.2.4. 统计分析方法

使用Kolmogorov-Smirnov法对定量资料进行正态性检验,对符合正态分布的连续变量使用`X ± S (均值 ± 标准差)表示,不符合正态分布的连续变量使用M (P25, P75) [中位数(四分位数)]进行描述。使用独立样本t检验对符合正态分布的两组连续变量进行比较,不符合正态分布的两组连续变量使用Mann-Whitney U检验,使用Pearson卡方检验或Fisher精确检验对分类变量进行比较,将单因素分析中P < 0.05的相关因素纳入多因Logistic回归分析,得出肺粘液腺癌与非粘液腺癌鉴别诊断的因素并通过ROC曲线量化以评估鉴别能力,同时计算出受试对象的倾向性评分(PS),采取最近邻匹配,匹配容差0.03。对两组患者进行预后分析,OS定义为自手术切除至死亡或随访结束的时间间隔;DFS定义为自手术切除至发现复发或转移或随访结束的时间间隔。所有统计检验均为双侧检验,P < 0.05 时认为存在统计学差异。统计学分析均使用SPSS软件(版本:25.0)、python (版本:3.10)进行。

3. 结果

3.1. 未PSM患者临床、影像、病理特征

3.1.1. 未PSM患者一般特征

本研究共纳入976名患者,其中男性患者368名,女性患者610名,平均年龄为63.65 (±9.331)岁,共215名患者有吸烟史。肺粘液腺癌组与非粘液腺癌组的临床、影像病理学特征如表1所示。一般临床资料中,经过Kolmogorov-Smirnov法进行正态性检验,年龄符合正态分布(P = 0.671),采用独立样本t检验,两组年龄平均值分别为62.73 (±9.502),64.05 (±9.236)两组在年龄上有统计学差异(P = 0.042)。两组在吸烟史上有统计学差异(P = 0.045),其中粘液腺癌组吸烟人数57名,非粘液腺癌组吸烟人数158名。粘液腺癌组男性105名,女性187名,非粘液腺癌组男性263名,女性423名,两组在性别方面没有明显的统计学差异(P = 0.482)。我们发现,术前血液检测中淋巴细胞水平(P < 0.001)与术前NLR (P < 0.001)两组间存在显著差异。

Table 1. General clinical characteristics of patients in the unmatched two groups

表1. 未匹配两组患者的一般临床特征

a:独立样本t检验;b:卡方检验;c:Fisher精确检验;d:Mann-Whitney U检验;S:标准差;CEA:癌胚抗原。

3.1.2. 未PSM患者影像学特征

影像学资料(表2)提示两组之间在肿瘤位置(P < 0.001)、影像学分类(P < 0.001)、影像学肿瘤最大径(P < 0.001)、肿瘤实性成分最大径(P < 0.001)、CTR (P < 0.001)、支气管充气征(P < 0.001)、空泡征(P < 0.001)、胸膜牵拉征(P < 0.001)有着显著差异。相较于非粘液腺癌发生于肺上叶(58.7%),粘液腺癌组多发生于肺下叶(42.3%),且更多以实性结节为主(55.8%:28.9%);更多的患者出现支气管充气征(23.3%:7.6%)、空洞征(25.3%:13.7%),而胸膜牵拉征(26.7%:40.2%)在非粘液腺癌患者的影像学图像上更易发现。

3.1.3. 未PSM患者病理学等特征

病理学相关资料结果提示两组患者在是否存在实体、乳头成分(P = 0.90),是否侵犯脏层胸膜(P = 0.696),解剖部位(P = 0.125)均无显著统计学差异。有趣的是,粘液腺癌组患者在手术方式的选择上,以电视辅助腔镜手术为主(P < 0.001)。除此之外病理T分期(P < 0.001)、病理N分期(P < 0.001)、病理TNM分期(P < 0.001)、手术清扫淋巴结的个数(P < 0.001)、术后病理显示阳性淋巴结的组数(P = 0.008)、阳性淋巴结的总个数(P = 0.009)均有显著统计学差异,见表3

Table 2. Imaging characteristics of unmatched two groups of patients

表2. 未匹配两组患者影像特征

a:独立样本t检验;b:卡方检验;c:Fisher精确检验;d:Mann-Whitney U检验;pGGN:纯磨玻璃结节;mGGN:混合磨玻璃结节;solid nodule:实性结节。

CTR:肿瘤实性成分占比

Table 3. Pathological characteristics of unmatched two groups of patients

表3. 未匹配两组患者的病理特征

a:独立样本t检验;b:卡方检验;c:Fisher精确检验;d:Mann-Whitney U检验。

PD-1:程序性细胞死亡蛋白-1;PD-L1:细胞程序性死亡-配体1。

3.2. PSM后患者临床、影像、病理特征

将年龄、性别等一般情况资料纳入倾向得分匹配分析,以去除一般资料作为混杂因素的影响。如表4所示,PSM后两组均有292名患者纳入研究,两组患者在年龄(P = 0.885)、性别(P = 0.665)、吸烟人数(P = 0.756)等基本资料上均无统计学差异,匹配性能良好。匹配后血液指标中淋巴细胞水平(P < 0.001)与术前NLR (P < 0.001)两组间仍存在显著差异,此外,两组间术前血清CEA (P = 0.014)出现了差异,见表5。而影像学资料较匹配前的结果几乎一致(表6)。匹配后两组术后病理(表7)显示阳性淋巴结的组数(P = 0.114)、阳性淋巴结的总个数(P = 0.096)无明显差异,其余病理资料较未匹配相似。

Table 4. General characteristics of the two groups of patients after matching

表4. 匹配后两组患者的一般特征

a:独立样本t检验;b:卡方检验;

Table 5. Clinical characteristics of the two groups of patients after matching

表5. 匹配后两组患者的临床特征

b:卡方检验;d:Mann-Whitney U 检验

Table 6. Imaging characteristics of the two groups of patients after matching

表6. 匹配后两组患者的影像特征

b:卡方检验;c:Fisher精确检验;d:Mann-Whitney U检验;pGGN:纯磨玻璃结节;mGGN:混合磨玻璃结节;solid nodule:实性结节。

Table 7. Pathological characteristics of the two groups of patients after matching

表7. 匹配后两组患者的病理特征

b:卡方检验;c:Fisher精确检验;d:Mann-Whitney U检验。

Table 8. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of two groups of patients after matching

表8. 匹配后两组患者的多因素logistic回归分析

mGGN:混合磨玻璃结节;solid nodule:实性结节;CTR:肿瘤实性成分占比。

Figure 2. Evaluation of ROC curve for identifying lung mucinous adenocarcinoma

图2. 评价鉴别肺粘液腺癌的ROC曲线

3.3. PSM两组的危险因素分析

随后我们将单因回归分析筛选出有差异的危险因素纳入logistic多因素回归分析中,最终可知实性结节(P = 0.018)、影像学肿瘤最大径(P = 0.004)、CTR (P < 0.001)、胸膜牵拉征(P < 0.001)为危险因素,磨玻璃结节(P = 0.001)、支气管充气征(P < 0.001)、空洞征(P < 0.001)、Ki-67 (P < 0.001)是保护因素,见表8。根据logistics回归分析结果,与非粘液腺癌相比,更多的粘液腺癌为实性结节,影像学CT显示的肿瘤最大径更大,CTR数值更高甚至为1,更易出现胸膜牵拉征;而支气管充气征、空洞征更少出现,Ki-67的表达量更低。ROC曲线结果表示在区分两组患者方面具有较好的性能(图2),曲线下面积(AUC)为0.86。

4. 讨论

肺浸润性粘液腺是肺腺癌的一种相对罕见的亚型,由含有丰富胞浆内粘蛋白空泡的杯状和柱状肿瘤细胞组成 [11] ,具有独特的临床、放射学、组织病理学和分子特征 [12] [13] [14] 。其研究由于其发病率低而有限 [15] ,往往表现出矛盾的结果。与非粘液腺癌相比,肺浸润性粘液腺癌在临床特征、影像学和病理学均有差异。我们通过倾向得分匹配以减小患者一般基线特征产生的混杂因素,旨在更客观地分析两者的差异,从而为临床中鉴别粘液腺癌提供参考。

两组患者的年龄、吸烟状况均有统计学差且两组案例数相差较大,为减少偏倚,我们进行了倾向得分匹配,使两组人数、年龄、吸烟状况等因素均不存在差异。匹配前后,术前血清CEA检测、术后阳性淋巴结等出现了不同,而其他结果几乎一致。肺粘液腺癌组患者术前淋巴细胞水平相对较低,NLR指标相对较高。NLR对免疫能力有一定的预测能力 [16] ,NLR升高可能意味着中性粒细胞活化有关,这可能与癌症进展有关也可能与淋巴细胞消耗有关 [17] ,然而两组大部分患者的NLR均在正常值范围,故尽管两者存在差异,此结果可能没有很大的意义。

影像学方面,粘液腺癌更多发于肺下叶,以右肺下叶更为常见,非粘液腺癌更多发生于肺上叶。这与之前的研究 [18] 结果是一致的,Bacha等 [19] 认为浸润性肺粘液腺癌常发生在肺下叶可能与其杯状细胞起源有关。有研究表明 [20] ,肿瘤大小对浸润性粘液腺癌患者的术前预测和预后都具有很高的价值。Woo [21] 等在多因素研究中发现,肿瘤大小是肺粘液腺癌OS的不良预后因素(风险比[HR] = 1.20,P = 0.028)。一般来说,浸润性粘液腺癌有着更大的肿瘤最大径 [20] ,这与我们的研究结果一致。肺粘液腺癌呈现为周围型生长的结节状或肿块状病灶,边缘模糊,质地较软,密度均匀,CT表现以实性或部分实性结节为主,鲜有磨玻璃样改变。本研究中,肿瘤最大径和CTR均为粘液腺癌的特征因素,对鉴别有极大的价值。

粘液腺癌组的支气管充气征、空泡征明显多于非粘液腺癌组,而胸膜牵拉征相对少见,也与之前研究 [22] [23] 相符,支气管充气征指在病变的肺组织区域中见到透亮的支气管影 [22] ,肺粘液腺癌以实质病变为主,同时分泌大量粘液伴近端支气管完全或不完全阻塞,导致远端部分炎症或不张,而病变区域仍有气体残留,形成支气管充气征;空泡征是指在CT影像上呈现出空气或液体填充的囊状结构 [23] ,这些囊状结构内部往往没有实质性组织成分,主要由气体或液体组成,与粘液腺癌分泌粘液特点相吻合。胸膜牵拉征通常由纤维母细胞及胶原纤维形成的瘢痕样纤维条索牵拉导致的胸膜凹陷,通常影像学上表现为“V”形或星芒形 [24] ,有研究表明 [25] 肺粘液腺癌由于以分泌粘液为主要特征,故胸膜凹陷征相较于非粘液腺癌较为少见。

病理学相关资料示两组患者在是否含有实体、乳头成分,是否侵犯脏层胸膜,解剖学分类上无明显差异。可以看出粘液腺癌分期相对较晚,且出现升期的例数较肺粘液腺癌更多,这与粘液腺癌相对体积较大且易局部转移复发 [26] 有关,由于粘液腺癌相对较大且实性成分较多故手术中更多采用的是淋巴结清扫而非淋巴结采样,而术后淋巴结阳性结果在PSM后却无明显差异,可能与组间样本数量差异、患者基本特征差异有关联,是否淋巴结转移存在差异在之后的研究中还需进一步探讨分析。

5. 研究局限与展望

首先,本实验主要是单中心的回顾性分析,缺乏对应多中心及前瞻性研究。其次,本研究倾向得分匹配纳入的因素较少,尽管在较少偏倚上有一定的作用,但应该收集更多一般临床资料数据并纳入倾向得分匹配,可以使结果更为可靠。第三,本研究仅仅是对影像、病理等特征进行的回顾分析,缺少对预后相关分析。

后续我们将会纳入更多的一般特征因素,减小混杂因素导致的偏倚,并收集预后的相关因素,从而为临床决策提供更全面、可靠的参考。

参考文献

[1] Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., et al. (2018) Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68, 394-424.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
[2] Xia, C., Dong, X., Li, H., et al. (2022) Cancer Statistics in China and United States, 2022: Profiles, Trends, and Determinants. Chinese Medical Journal, 135, 584-590.
https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002108
[3] Travis, W.D., 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. Journal of Thoracic Oncology: Official Publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 6, 244-285.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221
[4] 方三高, 陈真伟, 魏建国. 2021年第5版WHO胸部肿瘤分类[J]. 诊断病理学杂志, 2021, 28(7): 591-593 607.
[5] Yoshizawa, A., Motoi, N., Riely, G.J., et al. (2011) 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. Modern Pathology: An Official Journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 24, 653-664.
https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.232
[6] Mazzone, P.J. and Lam, L. (2022) Evaluating the Patient with a Pulmonary Nodule: A Review. JAMA, 327, 264-273.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.24287
[7] Zhang, S., Yu, X., Huang, Y., et al. (2022) Pneumonic-Type Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma and Infectious Pneumonia: Clinical and CT Imaging Analysis from Multiple Centers. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 22, Article No. 460.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-022-02268-5
[8] Kim, T.H., Kim, S.J., Ryu, Y.H., et al. (2006) Differential CT Features of Infectious Pneumonia versus Bronchioloalveolar Carcinoma (BAC) Mimicking Pneumonia. European Radiology, 16, 1763-1768.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-0101-5
[9] Warth, A., Muley, T., Kossakowski, C.A., et al. (2015) Prognostic Impact of Intra-Alveolar Tumor Spread in Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 39, 793-801.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000409
[10] Gow, C.H., Hsieh, M.S., Liu, Y.N., et al. (2021) Clinicopathological Features and Survival Outcomes of Primary Pulmonary Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma. Cancers (Basel), 13, Article No. 4103.
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13164103
[11] Yoshizawa, A., Sumiyoshi, S., Sonobe, M., et al. (2013) Validation of the IASLC/ATS/ERS Lung Adenocarcinoma Classification for Prognosis and Association with EGFR and KRAS Gene Mutations: Analysis of 440 Japanese Patients. Journal of Thoracic Oncology: Official Publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 8, 52-61.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182769aa8
[12] Travis, W.D., Brambilla, E., Nicholson, A.G., et al. (2015) The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors: Impact of Genetic, Clinical and Radiologic Advances Since the 2004 Classification. Journal of Thoracic Oncology: Official Publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 10, 1243-1260.
[13] Lee, H.Y., Cha, M.J., Lee, K.S., et al. (2016) Prognosis in Resected Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinomas of the Lung: Related Factors and Comparison with Resected Nonmucinous Adenocarcinomas. Journal of Thoracic Oncology: Official Publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 11, 1064-1073.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.03.011
[14] Kadota, K., Yeh, Y.C., D’angelo, S.P., et al. (2014) Associations between Mutations and Histologic Patterns of Mucin in Lung Adenocarcinoma: Invasive Mucinous Pattern and Extracellular Mucin Are Associated with KRAS Mutation. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 38, 1118-1127.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000246
[15] Russell, P.A., Wainer, Z., Wright, G.M., et al. (2011) Does Lung Adenocarcinoma Subtype Predict Patient Survival? A Clinicopathologic Study Based on the New International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society International Multidisciplinary Lung Adenocarcinoma Classification. Journal of Thoracic Oncology: Official Publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 6, 1496-1504.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318221f701
[16] Cupp, M.A., Cariolou, M., Tzoulaki, I., et al. (2020) Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Cancer Prognosis: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies. BMC Medicine, 18, Article No. 360.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01817-1
[17] Naszai, M., Kurjan, A. and Maughan, T.S. (2021) The Prognostic Utility of Pre-Treatment Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte-Ratio (NLR) in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancer Medicine, 10, 5983-5997.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4143
[18] Torres, P.P., Capobianco, J., Montandon Júnior, M.E., et al. (2012) Aspects of Bronchioloalveolar Carcinoma and of Adenocarcinoma with a Bronchioloalveolar Component: CT Findings. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 38, 218-225.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-37132012000200012
[19] Bacha, D., Ayadi-Kaddour, A., Smati, B., et al. (2008) A Pulmonary Mucinous Cystic Tumour of Borderline Malignancy. Pathologica, 100, 189-191.
[20] Wang, T., Yang, Y., Liu, X., et al. (2021) Primary Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma of the Lung: Prognostic Value of CT Imaging Features Combined with Clinical Factors. Korean Journal of Radiology, 22, 652-662.
https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0454
[21] Woo, W., Yang, Y.H., Cha, Y.J., et al. (2022) Prognosis of Resected Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma Compared with the IASLC Histologic Grading System for Invasive Nonmucinous Adenocarcinoma: Surgical Database Study in the TKIs Era in Korea. Thorac Cancer, 13, 3310-3321.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14687
[22] Sundaram, B., Chughtai, A.R. and Kazerooni, E.A. (2010) Multidetector High-Resolution Computed Tomography of the Lungs: Protocols and Applications. Journal of Thoracic Imaging, 25, 125-141.
https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0b013e3181d9ca37
[23] Tsutani, Y., Miyata, Y., Mimae, T., et al. (2013) The Prognostic Role of Pathologic Invasive Component Size, Excluding Lepidic Growth, in Stage I Lung Adenocarcinoma. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 146, 580-585.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.04.032
[24] Hashizume, T., Yamada, K., Okamoto, N., et al. (2008) Prognostic Significance of Thin-Section CT Scan Findings in Small-Sized Lung Adenocarcinoma. Chest, 133, 441-447.
https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.07-1533
[25] Gao, F., Li, M., Zhang, Z., et al. (2019) Morphological Classification of Pre-Invasive Lesions and Early-Stage Lung Adenocarcinoma Based on CT Images. European Radiology, 29, 5423-5430.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06149-0
[26] Warth, A., Muley, T., Meister, M., et al. (2012) The Novel Histologic International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Classification System of Lung Adenocarcinoma Is a Stage-Independent Predictor of Survival. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 30, 1438-1446.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.37.2185