4.5 Article

A clinicopathological study of surgically resected lung cancer in patients with usual interstitial pneumonia

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 158-163

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.06.015

关键词

Histology; Location; Lower lobe; Lung cancer; Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP); Subpleural location

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The clinicopathological characteristics of lung cancer with concomitant usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) are insufficiently understood. This study aimed to elucidate a characteristic pathological feature of lung cancer that develops in patients with UIP, with a focus on the location of its onset. Methods: We reviewed surgically obtained specimens, including 547 tumors from 526 patients who underwent lobectomy for lung cancer. Surveyed patients were classified into three groups: patients with UIP (UIP group), patients with lung pathology other than UIP (non-UIP group), and patients without any associated lung pathology (normal group). The histology as well as the lobe and location of the onset of lung cancer were compared among these groups. The peripheral location was subdivided into subpleural, inner and tumor involved centrally secondary to extension. Results: The UIP group comprised 82 patients (male, 71 [87%]; mean age, 71 years; smoking rate, 94%), the non-UIP group comprised 334 patients (male, 267 [80%]; mean age, 69 years; smoking rate, 81%), and the normal group comprised 110 patients (male, 33 [30%]; mean age, 63; smoking rate, 29%). No statistical differences were noted in sex, mean age, or smoking index between the UIP and non-UIP groups. Compared with the non-UIP group, the frequency of squamous cell carcinoma (63% vs. 32%), lower lobe origin (76% vs. 32%), and subpleural location (24% vs. 5%) were significantly higher in the UIP group. Conclusions: Lung cancers in patients with UIP show a predilection for the subpleural region, where UIP is also thought to originate. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据