International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 266–274 | Cite as

A survival analysis using physique-adjusted tumor size of non-small cell lung cancer

  • Naoki Ozeki
  • Takayuki Fukui
  • Koji Kawaguchi
  • Shota Nakamura
  • Shuhei Hakiri
  • Taketo Kato
  • Akihiro Hirakawa
  • Kohei Yokoi
Original Article
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Differences in individual body sizes have not been well considered when analyzing the survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that physique-adjusted tumor size is superior to actual tumor size in predicting the prognosis.

Methods

Eight hundred and forty-two patients who underwent R0 resection of NSCLC between 2005 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed, and overall survival (OS) was evaluated. The physique-adjusted tumor size was defined as: x-adjusted tumor size = tumor size × mean value of x/individual value of x [x = height, weight, body surface area (BSA), or body mass index (BMI)]. Tumor size category was defined as ≤2, 2–3, 3–5, 5–7, and >7 cm. The separation index (SEP), which is the weighted mean of the absolute value of estimated regression coefficients over the subgroups with respect to a reference group, was used to measure the separation of subgroups.

Results

The mean values of height, weight, BSA, and BMI were 160.7 cm, 57.6 kg, 1.59 m2, and 22.2 kg/m2, respectively. The 5-year survival rates ranged from 88−59% in the non-adjusted tumor size model (SEP 1.937), from 90−57% in the height-adjusted model (SEP 2.236), from 91−52% in the weight-adjusted model (SEP 2.146), from 90−56% in the BSA-adjusted model (SEP 2.077), and from 91−51% in the BMI-adjusted model (SEP 2.169).

Conclusions

The physique-adjusted tumor size can separate the survival better than the actual tumor size.

Keywords

Lung cancer Body size Height Weight BMI Survival 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

References

  1. 1.
    Attaran S, McShane J, Whittle I et al (2012) A propensity-matched comparison of survival after lung resection in patients with a high versus low body mass index. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42:653–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dhakal B, Eastwood D, Sukumaran S et al (2013) Morbidities of lung cancer surgery in obese patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 146:379–384CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhaskaran K, Douglas I, Forbes H et al (2014) Body-mass index and risk of 22 specific cancers: a population-based cohort study of 5.24 million UK adults. Lancet 384:755–765CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prospective Studies Collaboration (2009) Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900 000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet 28(373):1083–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mungo B, Zogg CK, Hooker CM et al (2015) Does obesity affect the outcomes of pulmonary resections for lung cancer? A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis. Surgery 157:792–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kondo T, Hori Y, Yatsuya H et al (2007) Lung cancer mortality and body mass index in a Japanese cohort: findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study (JACC Study). Cancer Causes Control 18:229–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C (eds) (2009) TNM Classification of malignant tumors, 7th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Travis WD, Brambilla E, Burke AP et al (2015) WHO classification of tumours of the lung, pleura, thymus and heart, 4th edn. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sauerbrei W, Hübner K, Schmoor C et al (1997) Validation of existing and development of new prognostic classification schemes in node negative breast cancer. German Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat 42:149–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ozeki N, Kawaguchi K, Okasaka T et al (2017) Marginal pulmonary function is associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes in lung cancer surgery. Nagoya J Med Sci 79:37–42PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ozeki N, Kawaguchi K, Fukui T et al (2017) The diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide is associated with the histopathological aggressiveness of lung adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 52:969–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bianconi E, Piovesan A, Facchin F et al (2013) An estimation of the number of cells in the human body. Ann Hum Biol 40:463–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration (2012) Adult height and the risk of cause-specific death and vascular morbidity in 1 million people: individual participant meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 41:1419–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Batty GD, Barzi F, Woodward M, Asia Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration et al (2010) Adult height and cancer mortality in Asia: The Asia Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration. Ann Oncol 21:646–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodman MT, Wilkens LR (1991) Relation of body size to prognosis in lung cancer patients. Cancer Causes Control 2:183–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altman DG (1990) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Thoracic SurgeryNagoya University Graduate School of MedicineNagoyaJapan
  2. 2.Statistical Analysis Section, Center for Advanced Medicine and Clinical ResearchNagoya University HospitalNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations