Purpose: This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of clinical T staging based on axial, multiplanar, and 3-dimensional measurement on CT with that of pathological T staging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
Method: Patients with surgically resected lung cancer without pathological node metastasis between June 2010 and December 2017 were retrospectively included. Clinical T stages were determined based on the maximal tumor size on axial, multiplanar (axial, coronal, and sagittal) images and 3-dimensional tumor mask. The prognostic performances of clinical and pathological T staging for disease-free survival (DFS) were compared using the concordance indices (C-indices).
Results: A total of 544 patients (64.7 ± 9.7 years, 352 men) were included; 160 patients (29.4%) experienced events including 29 (5.3%) who expired. The median DFS was 44.1 months. The mean tumor size on axial, multiplanar images, 3-dimensional tumor mask, and pathology was 30.8 ± 17.3, 33.9 ± 19.4, 39.2 ± 21.4, and 33.4 ± 18.0 mm, respectively. Clinical staging based on multiplanar measurement showed a higher agreement (67.5% [367/544]) with pathological staging than axial (60.5% [329/544]) and 3-dimensional measurement (50.9% [277/544]) based staging did (p = .0005 and <.0001, respectively). The adjusted C-indices of axial, multiplanar, 3-dimensional, and pathological tumor stages were 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.67), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.66-0.66), 0.67 (95% CI: 0.67-0.67), and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.66-0.67), respectively (p > .05).
Conclusions: The prognostic performances of tumor staging according to size measurement methods were not significantly different. Multiplanar measurement may be preferable for clinical staging considering its highest agreement with pathological staging.
Keywords: Computed Tomography; Lung cancer; Measurement method; Prognostic performance; Tumor staging.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.