Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Kosuke Fujino
Author of
-
+
EP1.12 - Small Cell Lung Cancer/NET (ID 202)
- Event: WCLC 2019
- Type: E-Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
- Track: Small Cell Lung Cancer/NET
- Presentations: 1
- Now Available
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/08/2019, 08:00 - 18:00, Exhibit Hall
-
+
EP1.12-03 - The Significance of INSM1 Expression in Small Cell Lung Cancer (Now Available) (ID 2132)
08:00 - 18:00 | Presenting Author(s): Kosuke Fujino
- Abstract
Background
We previously demonstrated that INSM1 expressed in NE tumors (NETs) exclusively and INSM1 is a highly sensitive and specific immunohistochemical (IHC) marker in NETs, such as small cell lung cancer (SCLC). In the present study, we investigated 1) diagnostic performance of INSM1 in the diagnosis of SCLC in various types of samples 2) the association of INSM1 with clinical course.
Method
We evaluated INSM1 as an IHC marker in 384 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded lung cancer samples (291 surgically resected samples (90 SCLCs and 201 NSCLCs) and 55 CT-guided biopsy samples (25 SCLCs and 30 NSCLCs)), in 50 cytology samples (25 SCLC metastatic lymph nodes and 25 NSCLCs) obtained by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. The mRNA expression levels of INSM1 was examined using qRT-PCR in 37 SCLCs and 40 NSCLCs. We evaluated the association of INSM1 expression (IHC and qRT-PCR data) with clinical course.
Result
INSM1 was expressed in 94% of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded SCLC samples (109/115) and in 92% of cytology SCLC samples (23/25). Whereas, 4 out of 231 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded NSCLC cases (1.7%) had weak expression of INSM1 and none of the cytology NSCLC samples were positive. The mRNA level of INSM1 was significantly higher in SCLCs including in two cases who were INSM1 negative with IHC. No association between IHC positivity and mRNA expression level of INSM1 with evaluated clinical features including overall survival was observed.
Conclusion
Our study suggests INSM1 is a reliable IHC marker for SCLC in various types of clinical samples. There was no association between INSM1 and clinical courses in the present study.
-
+
P1.16 - Treatment in the Real World - Support, Survivorship, Systems Research (ID 186)
- Event: WCLC 2019
- Type: Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
- Track: Treatment in the Real World - Support, Survivorship, Systems Research
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/08/2019, 09:45 - 18:00, Exhibit Hall
-
+
P1.16-25 - Impact of Pirfenidone on the Risk Scoring System of Postoperative Acute Exacerbation of Interstitial Pneumonia in Lung Cancer (ID 2407)
09:45 - 18:00 | Author(s): Kosuke Fujino
- Abstract
Background
Acute exacerbation (AE) of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP) is a life-threatening complication of lung cancer resection. There has been an increasing number of studies about postoperative AE of IIP in recent years. A few of these have reported that perioperative oral administration of pirfenidone reduces the occurrence of AE in patients with IIP. Furthermore, a large cohort study conducted by the Japanese Association for Chest Surgeons (JACS) proposed risk factors for postoperative AE in IIP patients which can predict the incidence of AE following an operation. JACS risk score included seven factors (sex, history of AE, surgical procedure, usual interstitial pneumonia pattern, steroid use, KL-6, %VC) and classified patients into three groups: low risk (risk score: 0-10), intermediate risk (risk score: 11-14) and high risk (risk score: 15-22). The objective of present study is to investigate the validity of those risk factors for patients with IIP who are taking pirfenidone.
Method
We retrospectively analyzed 1626 consecutive lung cancer patients who had undergone lung resection at our institution from January 2010 to December 2018. The patients who underwent lung resection since 2016 onward were administered pirfenidone from 4 weeks before operation to 4 weeks after operation.
Result
Out of 1626 patients, 125 patients (7.7%) had IIP. Twenty patients (16%) took pirfenidone and 105 patients (84%) did not take pirfenidone. Of the patients taking pirfenidone, three patients (15%) contracted AE of IIP after lung resection within 30 postoperative days. No significant difference was identified in JACS risk score between AE (+) group taking pirfenidone and AE (-) group taking pirfenidone (10.7 ± 3.2 versus 8.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.74). In the AE (+) group taking pirfenidone, there were significant higher rates of patients having increased serum levels of KL-6 or having reached pathological stageⅡ-Ⅳ (UICC 8th) (p = 0.01 , p = 0.04, respectively). Of the patients not taking pirfenidone, seven patients (6.7%) contracted AE of IIP. No significant difference was identified in incidence of postoperative AE between the group of patients taking pirfenidone and the group not taking pirfenidone (p = 0.21).
Conclusion
In the patients taking pirfenidone, there was no significant difference in the risk score between AE (+) group and AE (-) group.
