|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;127:633-635
© 2004 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
Editorial |
a Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pa, USA
Received for publication November 18, 2003; accepted for publication November 24, 2003.
* Address for reprints: Walter J. Scott, MD, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 7701 Burholme Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA
W_Scott@fccc.edu
| The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
| See related article on page 836.
|
In this issue of the Journal, Battafarano and colleagues1 report their experience with resection of malignant lung tumors in 69 patients who had previously undergone resection of a malignant lung tumor. On the basis of a retrospective analysis, they found that resection of so-called metachronous lung tumors could be performed in selected patients with an acceptable surgical mortality rate (5.8%) and meaningful long-term survival (5-year survival of 33.4%). The authors note that the 5-year actuarial survival of patients who had metachronous stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) resected was significantly longer than that in patients with more advanced metachronous lesions (42% vs 10%, P = .01). Most of the patients underwent anatomic resection of their metachronous lung tumors, but 42% underwent wedge resection, presumably because of limited pulmonary function. No mention was made of how these metachronous tumors were detected, whether through surveillance in otherwise asymptomatic patients or as a result of the evaluation of patients with symptoms or signs of recurrence. Given these findings, this article raises a number of questions about the clinical management of patients with a history of resected lung cancer who present with a new lung mass. Because patients with earlier stage metachronous tumors survived longer, the article also raises questions about the optimum follow-up of patients after potentially curative resection for lung cancer.
The authors point out that one major problem faced by the clinician is the differentiation of metachronous lung cancer from recurrent-metastatic lung cancer. Battafarano and colleagues1 used the criteria proposed by Martini and Melamed2 in 1975 to define a metachronous tumor as a second primary lung cancer (Table 1). Clinicians realize that misclassification of a metachronous tumor as a metastasis rather than a second primary lung cancer and vice versa
Related Article
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2004 127: 836-842.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. K. Bae, C. S. Byun, C. Y. Lee, J. G. Lee, I. K. Park, D. J. Kim, and K. Y. Chung The Role of Surgical Treatment in Second Primary Lung Cancer Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2011; 92(1): 256 - 262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Battafarano Invited Commentary Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2011; 92(1): 262 - 263. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. E. Lee, J. L. Port, B. M. Stiles, J. Saunders, S. Paul, P. C. Lee, and N. Altorki TNM Stage Is the Most Important Determinant of Survival in Metachronous Lung Cancer Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2009; 88(4): 1100 - 1105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |