Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep;8(18):1137.
doi: 10.21037/atm-20-5505.

A comprehensive algorithm to distinguish between MPLC and IPM in multiple lung tumors patients

Jun Shao  1 , Chengdi Wang  1 , Jingwei Li  1 , Lujia Song  2 , Linhui Li  1 , Panwen Tian  1 , Weimin Li  1
Affiliations

A comprehensive algorithm to distinguish between MPLC and IPM in multiple lung tumors patients

Jun Shao et al. Ann Transl Med. 2020 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis of multiple lung nodules has become convenient and frequent due to the improvement of computed tomography (CT) scans. However, to distinguish intrapulmonary metastasis (IPM) from multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC) remains challenging. Herein, for the accurate optimization of therapeutic options, we propose a comprehensive algorithm for multiple lung carcinomas based on a multidisciplinary approach, and investigate the prognosis of patients who underwent surgical resection.

Methods: Patients with multiple lung carcinomas who were treated at West China Hospital of Sichuan University from April, 2009 to December, 2017, were retrospectively identified. A comprehensive algorithm combining histologic assessment, molecular analysis, and imaging information was used to classify nodules as IPM or MPLC. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival rates, and the relevant factors were evaluated using the log-rank test or Cox proportional hazards model.

Results: The study included 576 patients with 1,295 lung tumors in total. Significant differences were observed between the clinical features of 171 patients with IPM and 405 patients with MPLC. The final classification consistency was 0.65 and 0.72 compared with the criteria of Martini and Melamed (MM) and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), respectively. Patients with independent primary tumors had better overall survival (OS) than patients with intra-pulmonary metastasis (HR =3.99, 95% CI: 2.86-5.57; P<0.001). Nodal involvement and radiotherapy were independent prognostic factors.

Conclusions: The comprehensive algorithm was a relevant tool for classifying multifocal lung tumors as MPLC or IPM, and could help doctors with precise decision-making in routine clinical practice. Patients with multiple lesions without lymph node metastasis or without radiotherapy tended to have a better prognosis.

Keywords: Intrapulmonary metastasis (IPM); comprehensive algorithm; multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC); survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-5505). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The comprehensive algorithm for patients with multiple lung tumors. Tumor in situ are defined as atypical carcinoma hyperplasia, and lung cancer in situ. Unusual histologic types are defined as other types of lung cancer apart from adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. The rare predominant pattern of adenocarcinoma is defined as midpapillary. The rare mutation is defined as TP53. MPLC, multiple primary lung cancer; IPM, intrapulmonary metastasis; GGN, pure ground-glass nodule; GGO, ground-glass opacity.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A comparison of the final classification with MM and ACCP classification. MM, Martini and Melamed; ACCP, American College of Chest Physicians; MPLC, multiple primary lung cancer; IPM, intrapulmonary metastasis.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The survival curves of the IPM and MPLC patients after the final classification. MPLC, multiple primary lung cancer; IPM, intrapulmonary metastasis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. van der Aalst CM, Ten Haaf K, de Koning HJ. Lung cancer screening: latest developments and unanswered questions. Lancet Respir Med 2016;4:749-61. 10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30200-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409. 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Girard N, Ostrovnaya I, Lau C, et al. Genomic and mutational profiling to assess clonal relationships between multiple non-small cell lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:5184-90. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0594 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Flieder DB, Vazquez M, Carter D, et al. Pathologic findings of lung tumors diagnosed on baseline CT screening. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:606-13. 10.1097/01.pas.0000202040.51967.d0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arai J, Tsuchiya T, Oikawa M, et al. Clinical and molecular analysis of synchronous double lung cancers. Lung Cancer 2012;77:281-7. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.04.003 - DOI - PubMed