Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 2014 - Volume 9 - Issue 3 > TNM Classification and Clinicopathological Factors: What Is...
Journal of Thoracic Oncology:
doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000110
Editorials

TNM Classification and Clinicopathological Factors: What Is Helpful for Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decision after Lung Cancer Resection?

Sculier, Jean-Paul MD, PhD; Berghmans, Thierry MD, PhD; Meert, Anne-Pascale MD, PhD

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Service des Soins Intensifs et Urgences Oncologiques, Unité de recherche en oncologie thoracique, Institut Jules Bordet, Centre des Tumeurs de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Address for correspondence: Jean-Paul Sculier, MD, PhD, Institut Jules Bordet, Rue Héger-Bordet, 1, B-1000 Bruxelles, Belgique. E-mail: sculier@bordet.be

In the present issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology, Matsumura et al.1 reported a retrospective unicentric study assessing the prognostic role of a pathological factor, lymphatic permeation, after non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) resection. Lymphatic permeation was defined by the presence of floating tumor cells in vessels with no supporting smooth muscles or with elastic fibers. The confirmation of the visualization of the lymphatic vessels was confirmed by immunohistochemical staining with anti–D2-40 antibody. Lymphatic permeation was classified as ly0 in case of absence of lymphatic permeation, ly1 in the presence of intratumoral lymphatic permeation, and ly2 in the presence of extratumoral lymphatic permeation. In 1069 patients, lymphatic permeation was detected in 224 (21%), with 134 (12%) ly1 and 90 (9%) ly2. The 5-year overall survival rates of the ly0, ly1, and ly2 groups were 75%, 63%, and 34%, respectively, which were statistically significantly different. In multivariate analyses, ly2 appeared to be an independent poor prognostic factor.

Two questions may arise from those results: Should lymphatic permeation be incorporated in the staging classification? Is lymphatic permeation a potential useful marker for proposing adjuvant chemotherapy? By definition, lymphatic permeation can be today fully assessed only after surgery and requires careful microscopic examination of the removed piece. It is thus a factor to be considered for the pathological staging. This type of factor is not taken into consideration in the present tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification,2 mainly because of lack of data, small number of patients, or inconsistent clinical and pathologic results. As pulmonary nodules or visceral pleura invasion,3,4 lymphatic permeation might be a new T descriptor for a further revision of the staging system. Other potential changes are related to the size of the primary tumor, the number of positive descriptors within a T, N, or M category, or the number of metastases. This will nevertheless require the careful collection of adequate data with a sufficient number of cases for allowing multivariate analysis, taking into account all other significant descriptors.5 Data concerning the presence of carcinomatous lymphangitis described in the area of the primary tumor, elsewhere within the lobe of the primary, and involving other areas within the ipsilateral and/or contralateral lung are currently collected in the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project.6

In terms of prognosis, multiple factors have been proposed, including tumor characteristics, patients’ characteristics, tumor metabolic activity, laboratory parameters, and tumor biological markers.7 On the basis of the data available in the huge retrospective study performed for the 7th revision of the TNM system, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer staging committee proposed clinical extent of disease and sex as potentially useful prognostic factors for patients with resectable NSCLC. Performance status and squamous cell type were proposed for stage IIB or superior and for stage IIIA, respectively. Considering pathological staging, age and sex were confirmed as important prognostic factors in addition to pathologic TNM category in surgically resected NSCLC.8 Standard uptake value maximum (SUVmax) of the primary tumor measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan was also included in the list of recommended prognostic factors.7 The evidence is based on more than 20 studies, all retrospective in nature that have assessed the prognostic value of the primary tumor SUV, a semiquantitative measurement of the tumor metabolic activity. In a literature meta-analysis first published in 20089 and updated in 2010,10 SUV was found to be a potential prognostic factor for survival in the whole group of patients (stages I–IV; hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.69–2.56), as well as for nonmetastatic tumors (stages I–III; hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.83–2.60) (Table 1). To assess the independent value of SUV, the same team performed an individual patient data meta-analysis, the first results of which were presented at the World Lung Cancer Conference 2013. In multivariate analysis, SUV confirmed its prognostic value in addition to age, stage, tumor size, and surgery. Other metabolic criteria are nowadays under investigation in NSCLC, considering the whole tumor burden either by measuring the “metabolic tumor volume” or the “total lesion glycolysis” (TLG). For example, a recent large retrospective study showed that metabolic tumor volume and TLG are independent prognostic factors, at the difference of SUV, in stage III NSCLC,11 and the same conclusion was drawn for TLG in another retrospective study including only stage IV NSCLC.12

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools

In addition, we need predictor factors for determining which patients might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Today, the only factor used is the pathological stage on the basis of multiple randomized trials and meta-analyses.13–18 Some biological markers such as mutS homolog 2 or excision repair cross-complementing 1, although promising in retrospective studies (summarized in Tables 1 and 2), failed mainly because no reproducible cutoff was found to decide which patients should be treated (Table 3). In this optic, anatomical factors such as lymphatic permeation or metabolic factors as measured on the primary tumor by positron emission tomography scan should be assessed in addition to pathological stage by well-designed randomized trials with adequate sample sizes.

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools
Table 3
Table 3
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Matsumura Y, Hishida T, Shimada Y, et al. Impact of extratumoral lymphatic permeation on postoperative survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9:337–344

2. Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, et al.International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer International Staging Committee; Participating Institutions. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:706–714

3. Rami-Porta R, Ball D, Crowley J, et al.International Staging Committee; Cancer Research and Biostatistics; Observers to the Committee; Participating Institutions. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the T descriptors in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:593–602

4. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Rami-Porta R, et al.International Staging Committee. Visceral pleural invasion: pathologic criteria and use of elastic stains: proposal for the 7th edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:1384–1390

5. Rami-Porta R, Goldstraw P. Strength and weakness of the new TNM classification for lung cancer. Eur Respir J. 2010;36:237–239

6. Giroux DJ, Rami-Porta R, Chansky K, et al.International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer International Staging Committee. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: data elements for the prospective project. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:679–683

7. Sculier JP, Chansky K, Crowley JJ, Van Meerbeeck J, Goldstraw PInternational Staging Committee and Participating Institutions. . The impact of additional prognostic factors on survival and their relationship with the anatomical extent of disease expressed by the 6th Edition of the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors and the proposals for the 7th Edition. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:457–466

8. Chansky K, Sculier JP, Crowley JJ, Giroux D, Van Meerbeeck J, Goldstraw PInternational Staging Committee and Participating Institutions. . The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project: prognostic factors and pathologic TNM stage in surgically managed non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:792–801

9. Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, et al.European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:6–12

10. Paesmans M, Berghmans T, Dusart M, et al.European Lung Cancer Working Party, and on behalf of the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. Primary tumor standardized uptake value measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:612–619

11. Hyun SH, Ahn HK, Kim H, et al. Volume-based assessment by (18)F-FDG PET/CT predicts survival in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:50–58

12. Zaizen Y, Azuma K, Kurata S, et al. Prognostic significance of total lesion glycolysis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:4179–4184

13. . Traitement des cancers bronchiques non à petites cellules et résécables. Recommandations de pratique clinique de l’European Lung Cancer working Party. Rev Med Brux. 2006;27:29–38

14. Winton T, Livingston R, Johnson D, et al.National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group; National Cancer Institute of the United States Intergroup JBR.10 Trial Investigators. Vinorelbine plus cisplatin vs. observation in resected non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2589–2597

15. Douillard JY, Rosell R, De Lena M, et al. Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus observation in patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (Adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association [ANITA]): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:719–727

16. Alam N, Darling G, Shepherd FA, Mackay JA, Evans WKLung Cancer Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario’s Program in Evidence-Based Care. . Postoperative chemotherapy in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1926–1936

17. Butts CA, Ding K, Seymour L, et al. Randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine plus cisplatin compared with observation in completely resected stage IB and II non-small-cell lung cancer: updated survival analysis of JBR-10. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:29–34

18. Arriagada R, Auperin A, Burdett S, Higgins JP, Johnson DH, Le CT, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without postoperative radiotherapy, in operable non-small-cell lung cancer: two meta-analyses of individual patient data. Lancet. 2010;375:1267–1277

19. Kamal NS, Soria JC, Mendiboure J, et al.International Adjuvant Lung Trial-Bio investigators. MutS homologue 2 and the long-term benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1206–1215

20. Pierceall WE, Olaussen KA, Rousseau V, et al. Cisplatin benefit is predicted by immunohistochemical analysis of DNA repair proteins in squamous cell carcinoma but not adenocarcinoma: theranostic modeling by NSCLC constituent histological subclasses. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:2245–2252

21. Olaussen KA, Dunant A, Fouret P, et al.IALT Bio Investigators. DNA repair by ERCC1 in non-small-cell lung cancer and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:983–991

22. Zheng Z, Chen T, Li X, Haura E, Sharma A, Bepler G. DNA synthesis and repair genes RRM1 and ERCC1 in lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:800–808

23. Filipits M, Haddad V, Schmid K, et al. Multidrug resistance proteins do not predict benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer: International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial Biologic Program. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3892–3898

24. Sève P, Lai R, Ding K, et al. Class III beta-tubulin expression and benefit from adjuvant cisplatin/vinorelbine chemotherapy in operable non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of NCIC JBR.10. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:994–999

25. Reiman T, Lai R, Veillard AS, et al.LACE-Bio Group. Cross-validation study of class III beta-tubulin as a predictive marker for benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in resected non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of four randomized trials. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:86–93

26. Graziano SL, Gu L, Wang X, et al.Cancer and Leukemia Group B; North Central Cancer Treatment Group; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Prognostic significance of mucin and p53 expression in stage IB non-small cell lung cancer: a laboratory companion study to CALGB 9633. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:810–817

27. Tsao MS, Aviel-Ronen S, Ding K, et al. Prognostic and predictive importance of p53 and RAS for adjuvant chemotherapy in non small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5240–5247

28. Zhu CQ, Ding K, Strumpf D, et al. Prognostic and predictive gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in resected non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4417–4424

29. Chen DT, Hsu YL, Fulp WJ, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of a malignancy-risk gene signature in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1859–1870

30. Voortman J, Goto A, Mendiboure J, et al. MicroRNA expression and clinical outcomes in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after complete resection of non-small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2010;70:8288–8298

31. Suehisa H, Toyooka S, Hotta K, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status and adjuvant chemotherapy with uracil-tegafur for adenocarcinoma of the lung. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3952–3957

Copyright © 2014 by the European Lung Cancer Conference and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share

Other Ways to Connect

Twitter
twitter.com/JTOonline

 



Visit JTO.org on your smartphone. Scan this code (QR reader app required) with your phone and be taken directly to the site.

 For additional oncology content, visit LWW Oncology Journals on Facebook.