Concordance between clinical and pathology TNM-staging in lung cancer
ForfatterSolberg, Steinar; Nilssen, Yngvar; Brustugun, Odd Terje; Haram, Per Magnus; Helland, Åslaug; Møller, Bjørn; Strand, Trond-Eirik; Wahl, Sissel Gyrid Freim; Fjellbirkeland, Lars
Materials and Methods: A total of 1284 patients who underwent surgery 2018–2019 with sufficient data regarding both clinical and pathology T and N descriptors were included.
Results: The differences in tumour diameter reported in the clinical and the pathology notifications were ≤5 mm and ≤10 mm in 65.9 % and in 84.4 % of the cases, respectively. For the c- and pT categories, there was concordance in 53.4 % while 28.4 % were upstaged and 18.2 % were downstaged. For N categories there was concordance in 83.3 % while 13.7 % were upstaged and 3.0 % were downstaged. Unforeseen pN2 was found in 6.2 % of the cases. For TNM staging groups there was concordance in 48.1 % of the cases, while 33.4 % were upstaged and 18.5 % were downstaged. The calculated sensitivity and specificity for reported cTNM staging as diagnostic test for being eligible for adjuvant treatment (stage II–IIIA) were 0.65 and 0.91, respectively.
Conclusions: These data on staging for lung cancer, as reported to the CRN, shows a disappointingly low precision and concordance in c- and pTNM staging. This urges a strategy for a marked improvement.