Growth pattern-based grading of pulmonary adenocarcinoma—Analysis of 534 cases with comparison between observers and survival analysis

J. M. Boland, J. A. Wampfler, Ping Yang, E. S. Yi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives The 2015 WHO classification of pulmonary adenocarcinoma recommends recording observed architectural growth patterns in 5% increments for resected tumors, and determining the predominant growth pattern, which seems to be prognostic. There is debate over the best way to implement pattern-based grading, and whether such systems are reproducible. Materials and methods 534 resected adenocarcinomas were reviewed by 2 pulmonary pathologists to determine predominant pattern and percentages of all observed patterns. Three different grading schemes were applied based on predicted prognosis scores: score 1 (lepidic), score 2 (acinar/papillary), and score 3 (solid/micropapillary/cribriform). Mucinous tumors were separately evaluated as both scores 2 and 3 since their prognosis is more ambiguous. The first grading scheme used the score of the predominant pattern; the second used the worst observed pattern score; and the third scored tumors with ≥80% lepidic growth as 1, tumors with ≥20% of any score 3 pattern(s) as 3, and all remaining as 2. Results The predominant pattern assigned by each observer was an exact match in 51.7% of cases, a “close match” in 27.3% (same prognosis score), and a mismatch in 21%. Predominant pattern determined by both observers showed significant stratification of overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS, respectively). All 3 grading schemes showed a significant difference in OS and PFS determined by both observers; but the worst score scheme provided suboptimal results, likely due to a very small score 1 group, and this scheme did not maintain significance on multivariable analysis. Survival differences for all grading schemes maintained significance whether mucinous was considered score 2 or 3, but mucinous tumors trended towards poor survival. Conclusion Pattern-based grading has prognostic significance in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Interobserver variation is present, but two observers were able to predict significant differences in OS and PFS using various pattern-based grading schemes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)14-20
Number of pages7
JournalLung Cancer
Volume109
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2017

Fingerprint

Survival Analysis
Lung
Growth
Neoplasms
Observer Variation
Disease-Free Survival
Adenocarcinoma
Adenocarcinoma of lung

Keywords

  • Grading
  • Predominant pattern
  • Pulmonary adenocarcinoma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Growth pattern-based grading of pulmonary adenocarcinoma—Analysis of 534 cases with comparison between observers and survival analysis. / Boland, J. M.; Wampfler, J. A.; Yang, Ping; Yi, E. S.

In: Lung Cancer, Vol. 109, 01.07.2017, p. 14-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1c20bf52daee49f2adaf8a60df7ed2c4,
title = "Growth pattern-based grading of pulmonary adenocarcinoma—Analysis of 534 cases with comparison between observers and survival analysis",
abstract = "Objectives The 2015 WHO classification of pulmonary adenocarcinoma recommends recording observed architectural growth patterns in 5{\%} increments for resected tumors, and determining the predominant growth pattern, which seems to be prognostic. There is debate over the best way to implement pattern-based grading, and whether such systems are reproducible. Materials and methods 534 resected adenocarcinomas were reviewed by 2 pulmonary pathologists to determine predominant pattern and percentages of all observed patterns. Three different grading schemes were applied based on predicted prognosis scores: score 1 (lepidic), score 2 (acinar/papillary), and score 3 (solid/micropapillary/cribriform). Mucinous tumors were separately evaluated as both scores 2 and 3 since their prognosis is more ambiguous. The first grading scheme used the score of the predominant pattern; the second used the worst observed pattern score; and the third scored tumors with ≥80{\%} lepidic growth as 1, tumors with ≥20{\%} of any score 3 pattern(s) as 3, and all remaining as 2. Results The predominant pattern assigned by each observer was an exact match in 51.7{\%} of cases, a “close match” in 27.3{\%} (same prognosis score), and a mismatch in 21{\%}. Predominant pattern determined by both observers showed significant stratification of overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS, respectively). All 3 grading schemes showed a significant difference in OS and PFS determined by both observers; but the worst score scheme provided suboptimal results, likely due to a very small score 1 group, and this scheme did not maintain significance on multivariable analysis. Survival differences for all grading schemes maintained significance whether mucinous was considered score 2 or 3, but mucinous tumors trended towards poor survival. Conclusion Pattern-based grading has prognostic significance in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Interobserver variation is present, but two observers were able to predict significant differences in OS and PFS using various pattern-based grading schemes.",
keywords = "Grading, Predominant pattern, Pulmonary adenocarcinoma",
author = "Boland, {J. M.} and Wampfler, {J. A.} and Ping Yang and Yi, {E. S.}",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.04.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "109",
pages = "14--20",
journal = "Lung Cancer",
issn = "0169-5002",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Growth pattern-based grading of pulmonary adenocarcinoma—Analysis of 534 cases with comparison between observers and survival analysis

AU - Boland, J. M.

AU - Wampfler, J. A.

AU - Yang, Ping

AU - Yi, E. S.

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - Objectives The 2015 WHO classification of pulmonary adenocarcinoma recommends recording observed architectural growth patterns in 5% increments for resected tumors, and determining the predominant growth pattern, which seems to be prognostic. There is debate over the best way to implement pattern-based grading, and whether such systems are reproducible. Materials and methods 534 resected adenocarcinomas were reviewed by 2 pulmonary pathologists to determine predominant pattern and percentages of all observed patterns. Three different grading schemes were applied based on predicted prognosis scores: score 1 (lepidic), score 2 (acinar/papillary), and score 3 (solid/micropapillary/cribriform). Mucinous tumors were separately evaluated as both scores 2 and 3 since their prognosis is more ambiguous. The first grading scheme used the score of the predominant pattern; the second used the worst observed pattern score; and the third scored tumors with ≥80% lepidic growth as 1, tumors with ≥20% of any score 3 pattern(s) as 3, and all remaining as 2. Results The predominant pattern assigned by each observer was an exact match in 51.7% of cases, a “close match” in 27.3% (same prognosis score), and a mismatch in 21%. Predominant pattern determined by both observers showed significant stratification of overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS, respectively). All 3 grading schemes showed a significant difference in OS and PFS determined by both observers; but the worst score scheme provided suboptimal results, likely due to a very small score 1 group, and this scheme did not maintain significance on multivariable analysis. Survival differences for all grading schemes maintained significance whether mucinous was considered score 2 or 3, but mucinous tumors trended towards poor survival. Conclusion Pattern-based grading has prognostic significance in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Interobserver variation is present, but two observers were able to predict significant differences in OS and PFS using various pattern-based grading schemes.

AB - Objectives The 2015 WHO classification of pulmonary adenocarcinoma recommends recording observed architectural growth patterns in 5% increments for resected tumors, and determining the predominant growth pattern, which seems to be prognostic. There is debate over the best way to implement pattern-based grading, and whether such systems are reproducible. Materials and methods 534 resected adenocarcinomas were reviewed by 2 pulmonary pathologists to determine predominant pattern and percentages of all observed patterns. Three different grading schemes were applied based on predicted prognosis scores: score 1 (lepidic), score 2 (acinar/papillary), and score 3 (solid/micropapillary/cribriform). Mucinous tumors were separately evaluated as both scores 2 and 3 since their prognosis is more ambiguous. The first grading scheme used the score of the predominant pattern; the second used the worst observed pattern score; and the third scored tumors with ≥80% lepidic growth as 1, tumors with ≥20% of any score 3 pattern(s) as 3, and all remaining as 2. Results The predominant pattern assigned by each observer was an exact match in 51.7% of cases, a “close match” in 27.3% (same prognosis score), and a mismatch in 21%. Predominant pattern determined by both observers showed significant stratification of overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS, respectively). All 3 grading schemes showed a significant difference in OS and PFS determined by both observers; but the worst score scheme provided suboptimal results, likely due to a very small score 1 group, and this scheme did not maintain significance on multivariable analysis. Survival differences for all grading schemes maintained significance whether mucinous was considered score 2 or 3, but mucinous tumors trended towards poor survival. Conclusion Pattern-based grading has prognostic significance in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Interobserver variation is present, but two observers were able to predict significant differences in OS and PFS using various pattern-based grading schemes.

KW - Grading

KW - Predominant pattern

KW - Pulmonary adenocarcinoma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018915705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018915705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.04.013

DO - 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.04.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 28577944

AN - SCOPUS:85018915705

VL - 109

SP - 14

EP - 20

JO - Lung Cancer

JF - Lung Cancer

SN - 0169-5002

ER -