Cross-sectional and longitudinal assessment of muscle from regular chest computed tomography scans: L1 and pectoralis muscle compared to L3 as reference in non-small cell lung cancer

Karin JC Sanders,1 Juliette HRJ Degens,1 Anne-Marie C Dingemans,2 Annemie MWJ Schols1 1Department of Respiratory Medicine, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 2Department of Respiratory Medicine, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands Background: Computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used in clinical research for single-slice assessment of muscle mass to correlate with clinical outcome and evaluate treatment efficacy. The third lumbar level (L3) is considered as reference for muscle, but chest scans generally do not reach beyond the first lumbar level (L1). This study investigates if pectoralis muscle and L1 are appropriate alternatives for L3. Methods: CT scans of 115 stage IV non-small cell lung cancer patients were analyzed before and during tumor therapy. Skeletal muscle assessed at pectoralis and L1 muscle was compared to L3 at baseline. Furthermore, the prognostic significance of changes in muscle mass determined at different locations was investigated. Results: Pearson’s correlation coefficient between skeletal muscle at L3 and L1 was stronger (r=0.90, P<0.001) than between L3 and pectoralis muscle (r=0.71, P<0.001). Cox regression analysis revealed that L3 (HR 0.943, 95% CI: 0.92–0.97, P<0.001) and L1 muscle loss (HR 0.954, 95% CI: 0.93–0.98, P<0.001) predicted overall survival, whereas pectoralis muscle loss did not. Conclusion: L1 is a better alternative than pectoralis muscle to substitute L3 for analysis of muscle mass from regular chest CT scans. Keywords: body composition, muscle mass, computed tomography, respiratory diseas

A Population-Based Analysis of Application of WHO Nomenclature in Pathology Reports of Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Tumors

Introduction: Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are difficult to classify. We performed a population-based analysis to investigate the application of pNET nomenclature in daily pathology practice. Methods: Conclusions from pathology reports (20032012) describing carcinoids, (large cell) neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), and carcinomas with neuroendocrine features/differentiation were retrieved from the Dutch Pathology Registry by queries on location and diagnosis and screened for terminology. Cases with a nonpulmonary or unknown origin and small cell lung cancer were excluded. Diagnoses were clustered into subgroups and the retrieved terminology was compared with the 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) diagnoses. By means of an online questionnaire, interpretation of the non-WHO nomenclature retrieved from pathology reports was evaluated (by 35 physicians and 19 pathologists). Results: A total of 3216 unique pathology report conclusions with 55 different pNET diagnoses (n = 3052) and 20 uncertain diagnoses (n = 164) were analyzed. Non-WHO nomenclature was used in 15% of diagnoses (n = 488). Diagnoses could be clustered into carcinoids (n = 1086), NEC (n = 1316), carcinomas with neuroendocrine features/differentiation (n = 624), and unspecified pNETs (n = 26). Non-WHO nomenclature within these clusters was found for 7% of carcinoids, 20% of NECs, 13% of carcinomas with neuroendocrine features/differentiation, and 100% of unspecified pNETs and was observed more often in conclusions regarding biopsy or cytological specimens (62% and 12%) compared with resection specimens (26%). Analysis of the questionnaire results revealed that 4 of 19 diagnoses based on non-WHO nomenclature were uniformly interpreted (>50% agreement) by physicians, as were 10 of 19 diagnoses by pathologists. Conclusions: In 15% of pNETs other than small cell lung cancer, a non-WHO nomenclature diagnosis was provided, more frequently on the basis of smaller specimens. The interpretation was different between physicians and pathologists. Application of uniform nomenclature among all clinicians is advocated. (C) 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved