Utility of Newly Proposed Grading System From International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer for Invasive Lung Adenocarcinoma

• Main Authors: Atsushi Kagimoto, MD, Yasuhiro Tsutani, MD, PhD, Takahiro Kambara, MD, Yoshinori Handa, MD, PhD, Takashi Kumada, MD, Takahiro Mimae, MD, PhD, Kei Kushitani, MD, PhD, Yoshihiro Miyata, MD, PhD, Yukio Takeshima, MD, PhD, Morihito Okada, MD, PhD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021-02-01
• Series: JTO Clinical and Research Reports
• Subjects: Lung adenocarcinoma; Grade; Pathological grade; Lung cancer
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666364320301776

Introduction: The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer proposed a new grading criteria for invasive adenocarcinoma. However, its utility has not been validated. Methods: Patients who underwent complete resection of lung adenocarcinoma were included in this study. Then, they were divided into the following three groups on the basis of the criteria recently proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer: grade 1, lepidic predominant tumor, with less than 20% of high-grade patterns; grade 2, acinar or papillary predominant tumor, with less than 20% of high-grade patterns; and grade 3, any tumor with greater than or equal to 20% of high-grade patterns. Results: Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly different among the proposed grades (p < 0.001). The RFS of patients upgrading from current grade 2 (papillary or acinar predominant tumor) to proposed grade 3 (5-y RFS, 65.2%) was significantly worse than that of patients with proposed grade 2 (77.1%, hazard ratio = 1.882, 95% confidence interval: 1.236–2.866) but not significantly different from that of patients with grade 3 in both the current (micropapillary or solid predominant tumor) and proposed criteria (53.2%, hazard ratio = 0.761, 95% confidence interval: 0.456–1.269). Among patients with pathologic stage 0 or I, RFS was well stratified by the new grading system (p < 0.001) but not among patients with stage II or III (p = 0.334). In the multivariable analysis, the new grading was not a predictive factor of RFS. Conclusions: Although the proposed grading system well stratified RFS in patients with pathologic stage 0 or I lung adenocarcinoma, there is room for improvement.