Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSolberg, Steinar
dc.contributor.authorNilssen, Yngvar
dc.contributor.authorBrustugun, Odd Terje
dc.contributor.authorHaram, Per Magnus
dc.contributor.authorHelland, Åslaug
dc.contributor.authorMøller, Bjørn
dc.contributor.authorStrand, Trond-Eirik
dc.contributor.authorWahl, Sissel Gyrid Freim
dc.contributor.authorFjellbirkeland, Lars
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-17T14:45:01Z
dc.date.available2023-02-17T14:45:01Z
dc.date.created2022-08-30T13:06:52Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationLung Cancer. 2022, 171 65-69.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0169-5002
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3052061
dc.description.abstractObjectives - A prerequisite for utilizing the tumour, lymph-nodes, and metastases (TNM) for the staging of lung cancer patients is a high quality of the reported data on which the staging is based. The aim of this study was to investigate the concordance between the clinical, cTNM and the pathology, pTNM staging for lung cancer, version 8 as reported to the Cancer Registry of Norway (CRN). 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleConcordance between clinical and pathology TNM-staging in lung canceren_US
dc.title.alternativeConcordance between clinical and pathology TNM-staging in lung canceren_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber65-69en_US
dc.source.volume171en_US
dc.source.journalLung Canceren_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.07.014
dc.identifier.cristin2047199
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal