Pulmonary Lymphangitic Carcinomatosis: Diagnostic Performance of High-Resolution CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Correlation with Clinical Pathologic Outcome.
肺淋巴管癌病: 高分辨率 CT 和 18F-FDG PET/CT 的诊断性能与临床病理结果的相关性。
- 作者列表："Jreige M","Dunet V","Letovanec I","Prior JO","Meuli RA","Beigelman-Aubry C","Schaefer N
:The rationale of this study was to investigate the performance of high-resolution CT (HRCT) versus 18F-FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of pulmonary lymphangitic carcinomatosis (PLC). Methods: In this retrospective institution-approved study, 94 patients addressed for initial staging of lung cancer with suspicion of PLC were included. Using double-blind analysis, we assessed the presence of signs favoring PLC on HRCT (smooth or nodular septal lines, subpleural nodularity, peribronchovascular thickening, satellite nodules, lymph node enlargement, and pleural effusion). 18F-FDG PET/CT images were reviewed to qualitatively evaluate peritumoral uptake and to quantify tracer uptake in the tumoral and peritumoral areas. Histology performed on surgical specimens served as the gold standard for all patients. Results: Among 94 included patients, 73% (69/94) had histologically confirmed PLC. Peribronchovascular thickening, lymph node involvement, and increased peritumoral uptake were more often present in patients with PLC (P < 0.009). Metabolic variables, including tumor SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis, as well as peritumoral SUVmax, SUVmean, and their respective ratios to background, were significantly higher in the PLC group than in the non-PLC group (P ≤ 0.0039). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for peribronchovascular thickening (69%, 83%, and 0.76, respectively; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.67-0.85) and increased peritumoral uptake (94%, 84%, and 0.89, respectively; 95%CI, 0.81-0.97) were similar (P = 0.054). For detecting PLC, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve were significantly higher, at 97%, 92%, and 0.98, respectively (95%CI, 0.96-1.00), for peritumoral SUVmax and 94%, 88%, and 0.96, respectively (95%CI, 0.92-1.00), for peritumoral SUVmean (all P ≤ 0.025). Conclusion: Qualitative evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/CT and HRCT perform similarly for the diagnosis of PLC, with both being outperformed by 18F-FDG PET/CT quantitative parameters.
本研究的基本原理是探讨高分辨率 CT (HRCT) 与 18F-FDG PET/CT 诊断肺淋巴管癌病 (PLC) 的性能。方法: 在这项回顾性机构批准的研究中，纳入了 94 例疑似 PLC 的肺癌初始分期患者。采用双盲分析，我们评估了 HRCT 上支持 PLC 的征象 (光滑或结节间隔线、胸膜下结节、支气管血管周围增厚、卫星结节、淋巴结肿大、和胸腔积液)。回顾 18F-FDG PET/CT 图像，定性评价瘤周摄取，定量肿瘤和瘤周区域的示踪剂摄取。对手术标本进行的组织学检查作为所有患者的金标准。结果: 在纳入的 94 例患者中，73% 例 (69/94) 有组织学证实的 PLC。PLC 患者支气管血管周围增厚、淋巴结受累和瘤周摄取增加更常见 (P <0.009)。代谢变量，包括肿瘤 SUVmax 、 SUVmean 、代谢肿瘤体积和总病变糖酵解，以及瘤周 SUVmax 、 SUVmean 及其各自与背景的比值,PLC 组显著高于非 PLC 组 (P ≤ 0.0039)。支气管血管周围增厚的敏感性、特异性和接受者操作特征曲线下面积 (分别为 69% 、 83% 和 0.76; 95% 置信区间 [95% CI]，0.67-0.85) 瘤周摄取增加 (分别为 94% 、 84% 和 0.89; 95% CI，0.81-0.97) 相似 (P = 0.054)。对于检测 PLC，灵敏度、特异度和受试者工作特征曲线下面积显著较高，分别为 97% 、 92% 和 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00)，对于瘤周 SUVmax 和 94% 、 88% 和 0.96 (95% CI，0.92-1.00)，对于瘤周 SUVmean (所有 P ≤ 0.025)。结论: 18F-FDG PET/CT 和 HRCT 对 PLC 的定性诊断价值相似，两者均优于 18F-FDG PET/CT 定量参数。
METHODS:BACKGROUND:The objectives of this study are to assess the chest drainage volumes of patients undergoing anatomic resection of non-small cell lung carcinoma and to determine the safety and effectiveness of administering enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis. METHODS:A total of 77 patients were included in the study. A study was conducted on the first group of 42 patients in which enoxaparin prophylaxis (enoxaparin, 40 mg) was subcutaneously injected once a day for a period of three days after the patients underwent anatomic pulmonary resection between March 2016 and March 2018. An enoxaparin-free group was identified and included 35 patients who received no enoxaparin prophylaxis after undergoing anatomic pulmonary resection between February 2013 and February 2016. We compared the changes in hemoglobin (Hb) levels, postoperative 3-day drainage volume, transfusion volume, pulmonary complications and length of stay between the two groups. RESULTS:No differences in postoperative Hb levels, chest drainage volume, transfusion volume, postoperative complications, and length of stay were observed between the two groups. Deep-vein thrombosis was noted in a patient in the enoxaparin-free group. No major bleeding was noted in either group. CONCLUSION:We found that for patients undergoing anatomic resection of primary lung cancer, the blood transfusion and chest drainage volumes did not differ, regardless of whether the patients were given enoxaparin. To the best of our knowledge, the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin on chest tube drainage volume for patients undergoing anatomic resection of non-small cell lung carcinoma has not been investigated before.
METHODS::The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of cryoablation (CA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC treated with CA (n=45) or MWA (n=56) were enrolled in the present study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) time and adverse events (AEs). The median PFS times between the two groups were not significantly different (P=0.36): CA, 10 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5-12.4] vs. MWA, 11 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.4). The OS times between the two groups were also not significantly different (P=0.07): CA, 27.5 months (95% CI, 22.8-31.2 months) vs. MWA, 18 months (95% CI, 12.5-23.5). For larger tumors (>3 cm), patients treated with MWA had significantly longer median PFS (P=0.04; MWA, 10.5 months vs. CA, 7.0 months) and OS times (P=0.04; MWA, 24.5 months vs. CA, 14.5 months) compared patients treated with CA. However, for smaller tumors (≤3 cm), median PFS (P=0.79; MWA, 11.0 months vs. CA, 13.0 months) and OS times (P=0.39; MWA, 30.0 months vs. CA, 26.5 months) between the two groups did not differ significantly. The incidence rates of AEs were similar in the two groups (P>0.05). The number of applicators, tumor size and length of the lung traversed by applicators were associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax and intra-pulmonary hemorrhage in the two groups. Treatment with CA resulted in significantly less intraprocedural pain compared with treatment with MWA (P=0.001). Overall, the present study demonstrated that CA and MWA were comparably safe and effective procedures for the treatment of small tumors. However, treatment with MWA was superior compared with CA for the treatment of large tumors.
METHODS:BACKGROUND:BRAF mutations occurring in 1%-5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are therapeutic targets for these cancers but the impact of the exact mutation on clinical activity is unclear. The French National Cancer Institute (INCA) launched the AcSé vemurafenib trial to assess the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in cancers with various BRAF mutations. We herein report the results of the NSCLC cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Tumour samples were screened for BRAF mutations in INCA-certified molecular genetic centres. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours progressing after ≥1 line of treatment were proposed vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Between October 2014 and July 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the NSCLC cohort. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed every 8 weeks (RECIST v1.1). A sequential Bayesian approach was planned with an inefficacy bound of 10% for ORR. If no early stopping occurred, the treatment was of interest if the estimated ORR was ≥30% with a 90% probability. Secondary outcomes were tolerance, response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS:Of the 118 patients enrolled, 101 presented with a BRAFV600 mutation and 17 with BRAFnonV600 mutations; the median follow-up was 23.9 months. In the BRAFnonV600 cohort, no objective response was observed and this cohort was stopped. In the BRAFV600 cohort, 43/96 patients had objective responses. The mean Bayesian estimated success rate was 44.9% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 35.2%-54.8%]. The ORR had a 99.9% probability of being ≥30%. Median response duration was 6.4 months, median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.8-6.8), and OS was 10 months (95% CI 6.8-15.7). The vemurafenib safety profile was consistent with previous publications. CONCLUSION:Routine biomarker screening of NSCLC should include BRAFV600 mutations. Vemurafenib monotherapy is effective for treating patients with BRAFV600-mutated NSCLC but not those with BRAFnonV600 mutations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02304809.