Sungjin Kim; Jeonghyo Lee; Jin-Haeng Chung

doi:10.4143/crt.2024.670

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 57(2); 2025 > Article

Original Article Lung and Thoracic cancer Histological Assessment and Interobserver Agreement in Major Pathologic Response for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer with Neoadjuvant Therapy: Sungjin Kim^1,2, Jeonghyo Lee³, Jin-Haeng Chung^2,3,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2025;57(2):401-411.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.670
Published online: September 9, 2024

¹Department of Translational Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Pathology and Translational Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

³Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Jin-Haeng Chung, Department of Pathology and Translational Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 82 Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13620, Korea
Tel: 82-31-787-7713 E-mail: chungjh@snu.ac.kr

*Sungjin Kim and Jeonghyo Lee contributed equally to this work.

• Received: July 19, 2024 • Accepted: September 8, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

836 Views
77 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Major pathologic response (MPR), defined as ≤ 10% of residual viable tumor (VT), is a prognostic factor in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after neoadjuvant therapy. This study evaluated interobserver reproducibility in assessing MPR, compared area-weighted and unweighted VT (%) calculation, and determined optimal VT (%) cutoffs across histologic subtypes for survival prediction.
Materials and Methods
This retrospective study included 108 patients with NSCLC who underwent surgical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between 2009-2018. Three observers with varying expertise independently assessed tumor bed and VT (%) based on digital whole-slide images.
Results
Reproducibility in tumor bed delineation was reduced in squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) with smaller tumor bed, although overall concordance was high (Dice coefficient, 0.96; intersection-over-union score, 0.92). Excellent agreement was achieved for VT (%) (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.959) and MPR using 10% cutoff (Fleiss’ kappa=0.911). Shifting between area-weighted and unweighted VT (%) showed only one case differing in MPR status out of 81 cases. The optimal cutoff was 10% for both adenocarcinoma (ADC) and SqCC. MPR+ was observed in 18 patients (17%), with SqCC showing higher MPR+ rates (p=0.044), lower VT (%) (p < 0.001), and better event-free survival (p=0.015) than ADC. MPR+ significantly improved overall survival (p=0.023), event-free survival (p=0.001), and lung cancer-specific survival (p=0.012).
Conclusion
While MPR assessment demonstrated robust reproducibility with minimal impact from the tumor bed, attention is warranted when evaluating smaller tumor beds in SqCC. A 10% cutoff reliably predicted survival across histologic subtypes with higher interobserver reproducibility.
Key words: Major pathologic response, Non-small-cell lung carcinoma, Neoadjuvant therapy, Interobserver variation

Introduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, accounting for 18% (1.8 million) of all fatalities globally in 2020 [1], and non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) constitutes over 85% of all lung cancer cases [2]. Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy has demonstrated survival benefits in resectable NSCLC [3], assessing the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy on overall survival (OS), the gold standard primary outcome, is resource-intensive and time-consuming. Thus, there is a need for surrogate markers of OS in neoadjuvant clinical trials.

Studies across various cancer types, such as breast cancer [4], melanoma [5], pancreatic cancer [6], and bladder cancer [7], have shown that pathologic responses following neoadjuvant therapy serve as significant predictors of survival. In NSCLC, residual viable tumor (VT) ≤ 10% was reported to be associated with improved survival [8-10]. This specific condition, a major pathological response (MPR), has been proposed as a surrogate marker for OS [11]. Recent clinical trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and targeted therapy have increasingly adopted MPR as their primary outcome [12].

To standardize gross protocols and slide review methods for MPR evaluation, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) has issued multidisciplinary recommendations [13]. Additionally, an area-weighted VT (wVT, %) calculation approach, henceforth referred to as the MPR calculation tool, has been proposed to mitigate potential distortions in VT (%) values stemming from variations in the tumor bed area across individual slides [14]. However, further investigations are warranted to evaluate whether the proposed MPR assessment methods can reliably reproduce interobserver agreement, enabling MPR to serve as a robust surrogate marker for survival in clinical settings. Additionally, given the distinct pathologic responses observed across histologic subtypes, proposals suggesting the use of higher VT (%) cutoffs, such as 65%, for adenocarcinoma (ADC) [15-17] necessitate further validation through comprehensive survival analyses to determine optimal cutoff values.

The primary objectives of this study were to (1) investigate the factors influencing the interobserver reproducibility of the tumor bed and VT (%) assessments, (2) compare the VT (%) values calculated by area-weighted and unweighted methods, and assess their impact on MPR determination, and (3) determine whether optimal VT (%) cutoffs vary based on histological subtypes.

Materials and Methods

1. Study cohort

This retrospective study initially identified 141 patients who received chemotherapy or chemoradiation followed by surgical resection at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (SNUBH) between January 2009 and December 2018. After applying exclusion criteria to confirm the neoadjuvant intention prior to surgery (S1 Fig.), 108 patients were included in the final analysis. Demographic, clinical, and pathologic data of all patients were extracted from the electronic medical records of SNUBH. Clinical and pathologic tumor-node-metastasis stages were re-evaluated according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual [18]. In the case of ypT0N+, ypStage was assigned following the IASLC recommendations [13].

Follow-up commenced on the day of surgery. OS was defined as the time until death from any cause. Event-free survival (EFS) was the time until the earliest occurrence of progression, recurrence, or metastasis after surgery. Lung cancer-specific survival (LCS) was the time until death attributed to lung cancer. All patients were censored at the last follow-up date of June 2023. The median follow-up duration was 49.5 months, ranging from 3.5 to 148.6 months.

2. Histological assessment

For gross sampling, the entire mass was submitted for examination if the maximum diameter was ≤ 3 cm. If the tumor was not initially identified, additional sampling was performed in areas suspected to harbor tumor. For tumors > 3 cm, representative sections were sampled, including the cross-section with the largest diameter.

All available hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of surgically resected primary tumor specimens were retrieved from the Department of Pathology at SNUBH. The slides were digitized using an Aperio GT 450 DX scanner (Leica Biosystems) at 40× magnification, with a resolution of 0.26 µm/pixel. Three observers with varying levels of expertise independently reviewed the whole-slide images (WSIs) using QuPath ver. 0.4.3: observer A, a medical doctor with 6 months of training; observer B, a junior pathologist; observer C, a senior pathologist specializing in lung pathology.

The evaluation of the tumor bed and quantification of VT (%) within WSIs adhered to the IASLC recommendations [13]. The “tumor bed” was defined as the area presumed to have originally harbored the tumor before neoadjuvant therapy, comprising three components: VT, necrosis, and stroma, collectively summing to 100%. Using QuPath’s annotation tools, observers A and B independently delineated the tumor bed borders on WSIs. All three observers, blinded to clinical information, independently assessed the VT (%), necrosis (%), and stroma (%) for each slide. Tumor cells with intact morphology were quantified as VT (%), while intratumoral stroma, such as papillary cores, was included in the stroma component. Assessments were performed in 1% increments to enable precise quantification.

Two approaches were employed to calculate VT (%) for each case: wVT (%) and unweighted VT (uwVT) (%). The unweighted method straightforwardly averaged the VT (%) values across all slides within a given case. In contrast, the area-weighted method adjusted the VT (%) based on the tumor bed area of each slide, aligning with the approach proposed by the MPR calculation tool [14]. The tumor bed areas used for wVT (%) calculation were determined through discussions among all three observers, based on the annotations of observers A and B. The average wVT (%) rated by the three observers was used to determine MPR status and the optimal cutoff.

3. Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using R software ver. 4.2.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was employed to examine the relationship between clinical and histopathologic features for continuous variables, while Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was utilized to examine the relationship between two continuous variables.

To evaluate the concordance of tumor bed area delineations between observers A and B, the Dice coefficient and intersection-over-union (IoU) score were calculated. Denoting the tumor bed area annotations by observers A and B as A and B, respectively, the scores were computed as follows:

Dice coefficient=2A∩BA+B

IoU score=A∩BA∪B

Where |A ∩ B| denotes the intersection, representing the overlapping region between the two annotations A and B, and |A ∪ B| denotes the union, encompassing the combined area covered by both annotations A and B.

The two-way mixed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for absolute agreement was employed to determine the interobserver reproducibility of VT (%) assessments among the three observers. Fleiss’ kappa statistic was utilized to evaluate the interobserver agreement for MPR status. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival rates over time, with differences between groups assessed by the log-rank test. In multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazard regression models, factors exhibiting significance (p < 0.1) in univariate analyses were included, excluding those significantly associated with MPR status (p < 0.05). To identify the optimal VT (%) cutoff for survival prediction, maximally selected log-rank statistics implemented in the R package maxstat were used. Statistical significance was defined as a two-sided p-value < 0.05.

Results

1. Clinical and histopathologic characteristics

The study cohort consisted of 108 patients, with 86 males (79.2%) and 22 females (20.4%), and a median age of 62 years. The histologic subtypes included 64 patients (59.3%) with ADC, and 38 (35.2%) patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC). Regarding neoadjuvant therapy, 95 patients (88.0%) received chemotherapy, while 13 patients (12.0%) underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy. All patients received platinum-based neoadjuvant regimens, with 80 patients (78.4%) treated with a regimen containing gemcitabine. The median number of neoadjuvant cycles was three. The median time from the end of neoadjuvant treatment to surgery was 28 days (range, 8 to 60 days).

A total of 303 WSIs were reviewed, with an average of 2.81 WSIs per case (range, 1 to 11) (S2 Fig.). Fig. 1 presents representative slide images illustrating tumor bed annotations and the evaluation of VT, necrosis, and stroma components.

Eighteen patients (16.7%) were identified as MPR-positive (MPR+) using the 10% VT (%) cutoff, and a pathological complete response was observed in six (5.6%). Clinical and histopathologic information regarding MPR status is presented in Table 1. MPR+ group exhibited more favorable pathologic features compared to the MPR-negative (MPR–) group, including lower ypStage (p < 0.001), higher frequency of tumor size reduction (≥ 30%) (p < 0.001), more frequent nodal downstaging (p=0.008), reduced pleural invasion (p=0.008), reduced lymphovascular invasion (p < 0.001), reduced perineural invasion (p=0.039), and reduced tumor spread through air spaces (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the cStage between the MPR+ and MPR– groups (p=0.312), indicating that the tumor burden at baseline was comparable.

SqCC exhibited a significantly lower median VT (%) of 28% compared to 52% in ADC (p < 0.001) (S3 Fig.), resulting in a higher frequency of MPR+ in SqCC (26% vs. 11% in ADC, p=0.044). Additionally, SqCC cases demonstrated a lower ypStage (p=0.017), a higher rate of tumor size reduction (≥ 30%) (p=0.003), more frequent nodal downstaging (p=0.001), reduced pleural invasion (p < 0.001), and less tumor spread through air spaces (p=0.013) (S4 Table). EFS was also improved in SqCC (p=0.015) (S5 Fig.). However, no significant differences were observed between SqCC and ADC in terms of the initial cStage (p=0.387), type of neoadjuvant therapy (p=0.527), neoadjuvant regimen (p=0.216), or number of neoadjuvant cycle (p=0.151).

2. Interobserver agreement on tumor bed evaluation

The size of tumor bed areas evaluated by observers A and B showed median values of 1.32 cm² (interquartile range [IQR], 0.66 to 2.11) and 1.21 cm² (IQR, 0.64 to 1.97), respectively. A high level of concordance in tumor bed evaluation was observed, with a median Dice coefficient of 0.96 (IQR, 0.91 to 0.98) and an IoU score of 0.92 (IQR, 0.83 to 0.95) (S6 Fig.). There were no changes in the MPR status in any of the cases when wVT (%) was calculated solely based on the annotation of observer A or B.

The interobserver reproducibility of the tumor bed was related to the size of the tumor bed and histologic subtype (Fig. 2). The tumor bed area (cm²) was strongly correlated with the Dice coefficient (r_s=0.4215, p < 0.001) and the IoU score (r_s=0.4212, p < 0.001), indicating a positive relationship across the entire set of slides. The Spearman correlation coefficient was higher for SqCC (Dice coefficient r_s=0.4963; IoU score r_s=0.4957) than for ADC (Dice coefficient r_s=0.3924; IoU score r_s=0.3923), suggesting that changes in tumor bed size are more sensitively reflected in tumor bed interobserver reproducibility in SqCC. Meanwhile, in terms of histologic subtype, although the tumor bed area (cm²) did not exhibit a significant difference between ADC and SqCC (p=0.484), SqCC showed a significantly lower median Dice coefficient (0.93 vs. 0.97, p < 0.001) and IoU score (0.88 vs. 0.93, p < 0.001) than ADC. In summary, SqCCs tended to display lower tumor bed reproducibility scores, particularly when the tumor bed size was small.

For the Dice coefficients, the threshold defining lower-bound outliers were set to 0.805 according to the quartile value and IQR. Of the 303 slides, 28 (9.2%) had Dice coefficients below the threshold. When compared to non-outliers, these lower-bound outliers were predominantly SqCC (75% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), exhibited smaller tumor bed sizes (median, 0.83 cm² vs. 1.36 cm²; p < 0.001), and had lower VT (%) values (median, 34% vs. 50%; p=0.005).

When reviewing the slides of lower-bound outliers, we identified common histological characteristics that posed challenges in tumor bed demarcation (Fig. 3). In SqCC, we observed void spaces within airway structures and/or adventitial tissue of bronchovascular bundles merging with the tumor bed, along with visual dispersion of tumor bed. For mucinous ADC, difficulties arouse in determining the tumor bed border within mucin. Extensive reactive changes surrounding the tumor bed also complicated the evaluation.

3. Interobserver agreement on VT (%) and MPR

The assessments of VT (%) and MPR assessments by the three observers demonstrated excellent concordance, with an ICC of 0.959 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.913 to 0.978) and Fleiss’ kappa of 0.911 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.96). There was unanimous consensus on MPR in 104 cases (96.3%). S7 Fig. presents a Bland-Altman plot illustrating the deviation of each observer’s VT (%) estimation from the mean VT (%).

The level of agreement in VT (%) assessment was influenced by the VT (%) value itself. The ICC varied depending on the VT (%) range. For cases with VT ≤ 20% or > 80% (n=36), the concordance was higher (ICC=0.996; 95% CI, 0.991 to 0.998) compared to the cases with VT (%) between 20% and 80% (n=72) (ICC=0.856; 95% CI, 0.632 to 0.930), indicating a higher level of agreement at the extremes of the percentages. Additionally, the standard deviation of the estimated VT (%) was significantly correlated with the VT (%) value. A scatter plot of modified VT (%), applying [VT] if VT < 50% and [100–VT] if VT ≥ 50%, along with the standard deviation, is shown in Fig. 4, with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.6550 (p < 0.001). This suggests that as VT (%) approaches 50%, the deviation tends to increase in magnitude.

Furthermore, we annotated the VT in QuPath on one ADC slide and one SqCC slide that exhibited the lowest agreement in VT (%) ratings. Each observer’s VT (%) ratings and the obtained VT (%) based on the annotated area are shown in S8 Fig.

4. Comparison of wVT (%) and uwVT (%)

We examined 81 cases with two or more available slides to compare the area-weighted and unweighted method for calculating VT (%) per patient case. A scatter plot comparing wVT (%) and uwVT (%) is presented in S9 Fig. The two methods exhibited an excellent level of agreement (ICC=0.973; 95% CI, 0.955 to 0.984) among these cases. The determination of MPR status using wVT (%) and uwVT (%) also showed a high level of agreement (kappa=0.95; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1), with only one case out of 81 exhibiting a differing MPR status. Based on the wVT (%) assessment, 11 patients (13.6%) were identified as MPR+, while one patient transitioned to MPR– in the uwVT (%) assessment, resulting in 10 patients (12.3%) classified as MPR+.

5. Optimal VT (%) cutoff and clinical significance of MPR

The optimal VT (%) cutoff values for OS (13.2%), EFS (7.7%), and LCS (13.2%) in the entire cohort were consistent with the 10% cutoff value (S10 Fig.). Within the ADC subgroup, the cutoffs for OS, EFS, and LCS were 7.7%, 15.2%, and 7.7%, respectively. In the SqCC subgroup, the corresponding cutoffs were 13.2%, 0.3%, and 13.2%, respectively.

Notably, a prominent peak was observed around 65% VT (%) in the standardized log-rank statistics, suggesting 65% as a potential candidate cutoff. In the entire cohort, the peak values were 64.1% for OS and LCS. In the ADC, the corresponding values were 65.4% for OS and 61.7% for LCS. However, when assessing the survival curves of the two groups categorized by the 10% and 65% cutoffs in ADC, it was evident that the 65% cutoff did not differentiate the dichotomized groups more effectively than the 10% cutoff (OS: p=0.222 vs. p=0.211; EFS: p=0.051 vs. p=0.008; LCS: p=0.364 vs. p=0.111) (S11 Fig.).

Higher VT (%) was associated with increased 3-year and 5-year cumulative overall mortality, cumulative event incidence, and lung cancer-specific cumulative mortality, as illustrated in S12 Fig. In the Kaplan-Meier estimates, MPR+ status, defined by a 10% cutoff, was significantly associated with improved OS (p=0.018), EFS (p < 0.001), and LCS (p=0.004) compared to MPR– status (S13 Fig.). In the multivariate analysis (Table 2), MPR+ status was an independent favorable prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.87; p=0.023), EFS (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.57; p=0.001), and LCS (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.68; p=0.012). The results of univariable analysis are available in S14 Table.

Discussion

In this study, we analyzed the reproducibility of tumor bed and VT (%) assessments involving three observers; explored the implications of wVT and uwVT (%) in MPR determination; and identified optimal cutoff values for VT (%) in ADC and SqCC. The strength of this study lies in the quantitative analysis of reproducibility utilizing digital WSIs and in identifying histologic factors that influence this reproducibility.

In terms of tumor bed concordance, we found that reliable MPR determination can be achieved under standard conditions. The MPR status remained unchanged in all cases when using either observer A’s or B’s tumor bed to obtain wVT (%). An MPR reproducibility study conducted by the IASLC [19], although without extensive quantitative analysis, also reported that challenging situations in tumor bed identification had minimal impact on the calculation of the MPR.

However, we suggest closer attention when assessing tumor beds in SqCC with small size. In this study, we found that histologic subtypes and tumor bed size influenced the reproducibility of the tumor bed assessments. The disparity in concordance by histologic subtype can be explained by distinct location patterns of ADC and SqCC. ADC typically presents as a peripheral lung parenchymal mass, while SqCC arises from the bronchial epithelium, developing as a central mass near the hilum. Therefore, in SqCC, tumor beds are often situated near or intertwined with fibrotic bronchovascular bundles, airway spaces, or post-obstructive alterations, introducing complexity in tumor bed evaluation. A similar situation was mentioned by Saqi et al. [14] who noted the difficulty in cases of hilar tumors with minimal VTs, where the adventitia surrounding the bronchi and blood vessels can appear close to the tumor bed. Regarding tumor bed size, minor discrepancies in annotations of small tumor beds could resulted in relatively significant variations in concordance, explaining the positive correlation between the concordance of the tumor bed and its size. This trend was more pronounced in SqCC as well.

We observed that the reproducibility of VT (%) assessments was particularly high when the values were at extreme percentages (≤ 20% or > 80%). This finding aligns with the IASLC reproducibility study [19], which reported higher concordance in VT (%) ratings at both extremes. During the manual annotation of the two WSIs with the lowest VT (%) reproducibility, we noted that numerous small VT areas intermingled with stroma led to overestimation of VT (%) at low magnification, consequently decreasing concordance. Additionally, the classification of empty spaces encircled by tumor cells, as seen in acinar patterns of ADC, introduced variability in VT (%) assessment among observers. As per the IASLC recommendations [13] and the suggestion by Saqi et al. [14], VT should consist solely of well-preserved tumor cells, excluding intratumoral stroma-like papillary cores. However, precisely distinguishing tumor cells from stroma or tumor-encircled spaces during slide examination can be intricate and prone to observer variability, especially when these patterns occupy a significant portion of the tumor bed.

Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm trained to accurately segment and quantify VT could mitigate these challenges. A previous study by Dacic et al. [20] found a strong correlation and systemic difference between AI-measured and human-assessed pathologic responses, suggesting AI may perform better in differentiating tumor cells from intratumoral components. Therefore, incorporating AI support could aid in precise VT quantification and determine the clinical significance of including or excluding delicate intratumoral stroma or tumor-encircling spaces in the VT calculation.

The wVT (%) calculation method introduced by Saqi et al. [14] involves visualizing a rectangle that matches the tumor bed area and accounting for its width and length. In our study, we utilized the annotated and their automatically calculated tumor bed areas in QuPath for the wVT (%) assignment process. When comparing wVT (%) and uwVT (%), we found an excellent level of agreement between the two methods, aligning with the findings from the IASLC reproducibility study [19] that reported these two approaches as mutually replaceable.

However, before integrating the unweighted method into routine MPR assessment practices across institutions, it is crucial to establish evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in representing the area-weighted method. This is because the discrepancy between wVT (%) and uwVT (%) arises during the allocation of tumor bed areas to each slide, a practice that may vary across institutions. After providing adequate validation, the area-weighted method could be employed only in specific scenarios, such as when VT (%) is approximately 10%, thereby avoiding the cumbersome estimation of tumor bed area for every slide.

A higher VT (%) cutoff of 65% was proposed for ADC instead of the conventional 10% [15-17], based on the study results exhibiting a favorable neoadjuvant response in SqCC than ADC. SqCC was reported to be associated with a higher likelihood of achieving MPR [15,17,21,22] and improved EFS [23] compared to ADC, which is consistent with the results obtained in this study. However, in terms of the optimal cutoff, our findings strongly supported the well-established 10% cutoff across histologic subtypes. MPR+ with a 10% cutoff was a robust prognostic factor for improved OS, EFS, and LCS after adjusting for other clinical and histologic factors. High reproducibility at the extremes of VT (%) values further ensures reliability in the evaluation of MPR with 10% cutoff across multiple observers.

The primary limitation of this study was its retrospective, single-center analysis. Caution is needed when interpreting the results, given the study cohort with two different types of neoadjuvant therapy – chemotherapy alone or chemoradiation. While chemoradiation-induced pathologic response is recognized to be associated with survival [24-26], differences have been reported in the rate of achieving pathologic response [27,28] and the degree to which pathologic response reflects long-term survival [29,30] between the two modalities. In our study, MPR+ rates were 10.5% (10 out of 95) and 61.5% (8 out of 13), respectively, in patients who received chemotherapy alone and those who received chemoradiation, with 44% of the MPR+ group being treated with chemoradiation. Although MPR proved to be a highly effective predictor of survival in the entire cohort in this study, the limited number of patients made it challenging to compare the clinical implications of MPR in these two groups.

In conclusion, this study investigated factors influencing the reproducibility of MPR assessment and established optimal VT (%) cutoff values for ADC and SqCC. Tumor bed reproducibility remains robust with minimal effect on MPR, but attention is warranted when evaluating smaller tumor beds in SqCC. Standardizing the 10% cutoff in both ADC and SqCC provides notable advantages in terms of survival predictions and reliable assessments.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2024-670_S1_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S2_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S3_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S4_Table.pdf

crt-2024-670_S5_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S6_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S7_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S8_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S9_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S10_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S11_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S12_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S13_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-670_S14_Table.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

This study was carried out in compliance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of SNUBH, which waived the requirement for written informed consent (B-2306-834-303).

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Chung JH.

Collected the data: Kim S, Lee J.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Kim S, Lee J.

Performed the analysis: Kim S.

Wrote the paper: Chung JH, Kim S, Lee J.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korean government (MSIT) [grant number 2022 R1A5A6000840].

Acknowledgements

Eun-sun Kim contributed to the data col lection and administration of the study. Hyojin Kim, Yeon Bi Han, Hyun Jung Kwon provided advice in data interpretation.

Fig. 1.

Representative images of tumor bed annotation and viable tumor (VT), necrosis, and stroma evaluation. (A) Tumor bed annotations by observers A (red) and B (blue). (B) Assessment of VT, necrosis, and stroma components within the tumor bed.

Fig. 2.

Histologic subtype and interobserver reproducibility in tumor bed annotation. (A, B) The positive relationship between tumor bed area (cm²) and Dice coefficient and IoU score, by histologic subtype. (C) Tumor bed area (cm²), Dice coefficient, and intersection over union (IoU) score by the histologic subtype are shown. ADC, adenocarcinoma; SqCC, squamous cell carcinoma.

Fig. 3.

Tumor bed annotation of lower-bound outliers in Dice coefficient. Tumor bed annotations by observers A (red) and B (blue) are shown. (A) In this adenocarcinoma, extensive peritumoral reactive changes were the primary factors contributing to discordance (Dice coefficient=0.535, intersection over union [IoU] score=0.366). (B) In this squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC), the bronchial lumen with surrounding fibrosis and accompanied cartilages complicated the tumor bed identification (Dice coefficient=0.785, IoU score=0.646). (C) Tumor beds located within airway structures may appear as separated regions in a cross-sectioned slide, as shown in this SqCC (Dice coeff icient=0.792, IoU score=0.655).

Fig. 4.

Correlation between viable tumor (VT, %) and standard deviation (SD) of VT (%) ratings. The horizontal axis represents the modified VT (%), which is [VT] if VT < 50% and [100–VT] if VT ≥ 50%. The vertical axis represents the SD of VT (%) ratings by three observers. The modified VT (%) and the SD show a strong positive correlation, indicating a decrease in VT (%) agreement as VT approaches 50%.

Table 1.

Clinical and histopathologic characteristics by MPR status

Characteristic	No.	MPR–(n=90)	MPR+ (n=18)	p-value^a)	Total (n=108)
Age (yr)	108	61 (55-68)	62 (53-64)	0.629	62 (54-67)
Sex	108
Male		68 (75.6)	18 (100)	0.021	86 (79.2)
Female		22 (24.4)	0		22 (20.4)
Smoking status	108
Never		24 (26.7)	2 (11.1)	0.346	26 (24.1)
Former		37 (41.1)	8 (44.4)		45 (41.7)
Current		29 (32.2)	8 (44.4)		37 (34.3)
Histologic subtype	108
ADC		57 (63.3)	7 (38.9)	0.132	64 (59.3)
SqCC		28 (31.1)	10 (55.6)		38 (35.2)
Others^b)		5 (5.6)	1 (5.6)		6 (5.6)
cStage	108
II		5 (5.6)	2 (11.1)	0.312	7 (6.5)
III		64 (71.1)	14 (77.8)		78 (72.2)
IV		21 (23.3)	2 (11.1)		23 (21.3)
ypStage	108
0		0	6 (33.3)	< 0.001	6 (5.6)
I		6 (6.7)	7 (38.9)		13 (12.0)
II		15 (16.7)	1 (5.6)		16 (14.8)
III		52 (57.8)	4 (22.2)		56 (51.9)
IV		17 (18.9)	0		17 (15.7)
Tumor size reduction^c)	85
< 30%		59 (80.8)	2 (16.7)	< 0.001	61 (71.8)
≥ 30%		14 (19.2)	10 (83.3)		24 (28.2)
Nodal downstaging	108
Absent		68 (75.6)	8 (44.4)	0.008	76 (70.4)
Present		22 (24.4)	10 (55.6)		32 (29.6)
Resection type	108
Lobectomy		71 (78.9)	12 (66.7)	0.436	83 (76.9)
Bilobectomy		7 (7.8)	2 (11.1)		9 (8.3)
Pneumonectomy		12 (13.3)	4 (22.2)		16 (14.8)
R class	108
0		84 (93.3)	16 (88.9)	0.618	100 (92.6)
1/2		6 (6.7)	2 (11.1)		8 (7.4)
Neoadjuvant therapy type	108
CCRT		5 (5.6)	8 (44.4)	< 0.001	13 (12.0)
Chemotherapy only		85 (94.4)	10 (55.6)		95 (88.0)
Neoadjuvant regimen	102
Gemcitabine/Platinum		71 (82.6)	9 (56.2)	0.024	80 (78.4)
Paclitaxel/Platinum		10 (11.6)	6 (37.5)		16 (15.7)
Pemetrexed/Platinum		4 (4.7)	0		4 (3.9)
Others^d)		1 (1.2)	1 (6.2)		2 (2.0)
Neoadjuvant cycle	104	2 (2-3)	3.5 (2.75-4)	0.004	3 (2-3)
Adjuvant therapy	108
No		19 (21.1)	11 (61.1)	< 0.001	30 (27.8)
Yes		71 (78.9)	7 (38.9)		78 (72.2)
EGFR gene alteration	73
Positive		26 (39.4)	0	0.046	26 (35.6)
Negative		40 (60.6)	7 (100)		47 (64.4)
ALK gene alteration	71
Positive		3 (4.8)	0	> 0.99	3 (4.2)
Negative		59 (95.2)	9 (100)		68 (95.8)
KRAS gene alteration	49
Positive		8 (17.4)	0	> 0.99	8 (16.3)
Negative		38 (82.6)	3 (100)		41 (83.7)
Pleural invasion	108
Absent		50 (55.6)	16 (88.9)	0.008	66 (61.1)
Present		40 (44.4)	2 (11.1)		42 (38.9)
Lymphovascular invasion	108
Absent		18 (20.0)	14 (77.8)	< 0.001	32 (29.6)
Present		72 (80.0)	4 (22.2)		76 (70.4)
Perineural invasion	108
Absent		72 (80.0)	18 (100)	0.039	90 (83.3)
Present		18 (20.0)	0		18 (16.7)
STAS^e)	108
Absent		42 (46.7)	18 (100)	< 0.001	60 (55.6)
Grade I		24 (26.7)	0		24 (22.2)
Grade II		24 (26.7)	0		24 (22.2)

Values are presented as interquartile range (IQR) or number (%). ADC, adenocarcinoma; ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiation therapy; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; MPR, major pathologic response; NSCLC, non–small cell lung cancer; SqCC, squamous cell carcinoma; STAS, tumor spread through air space.

^a) Wilcoxon rank-sum test; Pearson’s chi-squared test; Fisher’s exact test,

^b) Others include two patients diagnosed as adenosquamous carcinoma, two patients as sarcomatoid carcinoma, one patient as large cell undifferentiated carcinoma, and one patient as poorly differentiated NSCLC,

^c) Tumor size reduction was assessed based on the tumor longitudinal diameter confirmed by computed tomography (CT) at two different points of time; one was by the time of initial diagnosis, and the other was by the last CT before surgery after neoadjuvant therapy was completed,

^d) Others include one patient treated with doxorubicin/cisplatin, and one patient with etoposide/cisplatin,

^e) STAS was classified into two groups by its distance from the main tumor. STAS I: < 2,500 μm [one field of ×10 objective lens] from the edge of main tumor and STAS II: ≥ 2,500 μm from the edge of main tumor.

Table 2.

Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression model for OS, EFS, and LCS

Characteristic	No.	OS			EFS			LCS
Characteristic	No.	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value
Age (yr)	108	1.03	1.00-1.06	0.024	-	-		1.03	1.00-1.06	0.059
Histologic subtype	108
ADC	64	-	-			Reference		-	-
SqCC	38	-	-		0.60	0.36-1.01	0.053	-	-
Others	6	-	-		1.49	0.53-4.17	0.447	-	-
cStage	108
≥ IIIB	47		Reference			Reference			Reference
≤ IIIA	61	0.67	0.40-1.10	0.113	0.66	0.42-1.04	0.075	0.58	0.33-1.02	0.061
MPR status	108
MPR–	90		Reference			Reference			Reference
MPR+	18	0.41	0.17-0.95	0.038	0.28	0.12-0.65	0.003	0.18	0.04-0.76	0.019

ADC, adenocarcinoma; CI, confidence interval; EFS, event-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; LCS, lung cancer-specific survival; MPR, major pathologic response; OS, overall survival; SqCC, squamous cell carcinoma.

REFERENCES

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. Article PubMed PDF
2. Leiter A, Veluswamy RR, Wisnivesky JP. The global burden of lung cancer: current status and future trends. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20:624–39. Article PubMed PDF
3. Song WA, Zhou NK, Wang W, Chu XY, Liang CY, Tian XD, et al. Survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: an updated meta-analysis of 13 randomized control trials. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:510–6. Article PubMed
4. Yau C, Osdoit M, van der Noordaa M, Shad S, Wei J, de Croze D, et al. Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: a multicentre pooled analysis of 5161 patients. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:149–60. PubMed
5. Menzies AM, Amaria RN, Rozeman EA, Huang AC, Tetzlaff MT, van de Wiel BA, et al. Pathological response and survival with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma: a pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC). Nat Med. 2021;27:301–9. Article PubMed
6. Pietrasz D, Marthey L, Wagner M, Blanc JF, Laurent C, Turrini O, et al. Pathologic major response after FOLFIRINOX is prognostic for patients secondary resected for borderline or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an AGEO-FRENCH, prospective, multicentric cohort. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22 Suppl 3:S1196–205. Article PubMed PDF
7. Petrelli F, Coinu A, Cabiddu M, Ghilardi M, Vavassori I, Barni S. Correlation of pathologic complete response with survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder cancer treated with cystectomy: a meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65:350–7. Article PubMed
8. Junker K, Thomas M, Schulmann K, Klinke F, Bosse U, Muller KM. Tumour regression in non-small-cell lung cancer following neoadjuvant therapy. Histological assessment. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1997;123:469–77. Article PubMed PDF
9. Junker K, Langner K, Klinke F, Bosse U, Thomas M. Grading of tumor regression in non-small cell lung cancer: morphology and prognosis. Chest. 2001;120:1584–91. Article PubMed
10. Pataer A, Kalhor N, Correa AM, Raso MG, Erasmus JJ, Kim ES, et al. Histopathologic response criteria predict survival of patients with resected lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:825–32. Article PubMed PMC
11. Hellmann MD, Chaft JE, William WN Jr, Rusch V, Pisters KM, Kalhor N, et al. Pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable non-small-cell lung cancers: proposal for the use of major pathological response as a surrogate endpoint. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e42–50. Article PubMed PMC
12. Catania C, Muthusamy B, Spitaleri G, Del Signore E, Pennell NA. The new era of immune checkpoint inhibition and target therapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the literature. Clin Lung Cancer. 2022;23:108–15. Article PubMed
13. Travis WD, Dacic S, Wistuba I, Sholl L, Adusumilli P, Bubendorf L, et al. IASLC Multidisciplinary recommendations for pathologic assessment of lung cancer resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15:709–40. Article PubMed PMC
14. Saqi A, Leslie KO, Moreira AL, Lantuejoul S, Shu CA, Rizvi NA, et al. Assessing pathologic response in resected lung cancers: current standards, proposal for a novel pathologic response calculator tool, and challenges in practice. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022;3:100310.Article PubMed PMC
15. Qu Y, Emoto K, Eguchi T, Aly RG, Zheng H, Chaft JE, et al. Pathologic assessment after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC: importance and implications of distinguishing adenocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14:482–93. Article PubMed
16. Zens P, Bello C, Scherz A, Koenigsdorf J, Pollinger A, Schmid RA, et al. A prognostic score for non-small cell lung cancer resected after neoadjuvant therapy in comparison with the tumor-node-metastases classification and major pathological response. Mod Pathol. 2021;34:1333–44. Article PubMed PMC PDF
17. Liu X, Sun W, Wu J, Feng Y, Mao L, Chen M, et al. Major pathologic response assessment and clinical significance of metastatic lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Mod Pathol. 2021;34:1990–8. Article PubMed PDF
18. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. Springer; 2017.
19. Dacic S, Travis W, Redman M, Saqi A, Cooper WA, Borczuk A, et al. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Study of reproducibility in assessment of pathologic response in resected lung cancers after neoadjuvant therapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2023;18:1290–302. Article PubMed
20. Dacic S, Travis WD, Giltnane JM, Kos F, Abel J, Hilz S, et al. Artificial intelligence-powered assessment of pathologic response to neoadjuvant atezolizumab in patients With NSCLC: results from the LCMC3 study. J Thorac Oncol. 2024;19:719–31. Article PubMed
21. Cai JS, Li S, Yan SM, Yang J, Yang MZ, Xie CL, et al. Is major pathologic response sufficient to predict survival in resectable nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Thorac Cancer. 2021;12:1336–46. Article PubMed PMC PDF
22. Liu-Jarin X, Stoopler MB, Raftopoulos H, Ginsburg M, Gorenstein L, Borczuk AC. Histologic assessment of non-small cell lung carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:1102–8. Article PubMed
23. Liao WY, Chen JH, Wu M, Shih JY, Chen KY, Ho CC, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel-cisplatin in patients with stage III N2 non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14:418–24. Article PubMed
24. Haque W, Verma V, Butler EB, Teh BS. Pathologic nodal clearance and complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation for clinical N2 non-small cell lung cancer: predictors and long-term outcomes. Lung Cancer. 2019;130:93–100. Article PubMed
25. Pottgen C, Stuschke M, Graupner B, Theegarten D, Gauler T, Jendrossek V, et al. Prognostic model for long-term survival of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and resection integrating clinical and histopathologic factors. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:363.PubMed PMC
26. Schreiner W, Dudek W, Rieker RJ, Lettmaier S, Fietkau R, Sirbu H. Major pathologic response after induction therapy has a long-term impact on survival and tumor recurrence in stage IIIA/B locally advanced NSCLC. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;68:639–45. Article PubMed
27. Thomas M, Rube C, Hoffknecht P, Macha HN, Freitag L, Linder A, et al. Effect of preoperative chemoradiation in addition to preoperative chemotherapy: a randomised trial in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:636–48. Article PubMed
28. Munoz-Guglielmetti D, Sanchez-Lorente D, Reyes R, Martinez D, Lucena C, Boada M, et al. Pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy with chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC-contribution of IASLC recommendations. World J Clin Oncol. 2021;12:1047–63. Article PubMed PMC
29. Rosner S, Liu C, Forde PM, Hu C. Association of pathologic complete response and long-term survival outcomes among patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for NSCLC: a meta-analysis. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022;3:100384.Article PubMed PMC
30. Martinez-Meehan D, Lutfi W, Dhupar R, Christie N, Baker N, Schuchert M, et al. Factors associated with survival in complete pathologic response non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2020;21:349–56. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Histological Assessment and Interobserver Agreement in Major Pathologic Response for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer with Neoadjuvant Therapy

Cancer Res Treat. 2025;57(2):401-411. Published online September 9, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.670

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Histological Assessment and Interobserver Agreement in Major Pathologic Response for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer with Neoadjuvant Therapy

Fig. 1. Representative images of tumor bed annotation and viable tumor (VT), necrosis, and stroma evaluation. (A) Tumor bed annotations by observers A (red) and B (blue). (B) Assessment of VT, necrosis, and stroma components within the tumor bed.

Fig. 2. Histologic subtype and interobserver reproducibility in tumor bed annotation. (A, B) The positive relationship between tumor bed area (cm2) and Dice coefficient and IoU score, by histologic subtype. (C) Tumor bed area (cm2), Dice coefficient, and intersection over union (IoU) score by the histologic subtype are shown. ADC, adenocarcinoma; SqCC, squamous cell carcinoma.

Fig. 3. Tumor bed annotation of lower-bound outliers in Dice coefficient. Tumor bed annotations by observers A (red) and B (blue) are shown. (A) In this adenocarcinoma, extensive peritumoral reactive changes were the primary factors contributing to discordance (Dice coefficient=0.535, intersection over union [IoU] score=0.366). (B) In this squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC), the bronchial lumen with surrounding fibrosis and accompanied cartilages complicated the tumor bed identification (Dice coefficient=0.785, IoU score=0.646). (C) Tumor beds located within airway structures may appear as separated regions in a cross-sectioned slide, as shown in this SqCC (Dice coeff icient=0.792, IoU score=0.655).

Fig. 4. Correlation between viable tumor (VT, %) and standard deviation (SD) of VT (%) ratings. The horizontal axis represents the modified VT (%), which is [VT] if VT < 50% and [100–VT] if VT ≥ 50%. The vertical axis represents the SD of VT (%) ratings by three observers. The modified VT (%) and the SD show a strong positive correlation, indicating a decrease in VT (%) agreement as VT approaches 50%.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Histological Assessment and Interobserver Agreement in Major Pathologic Response for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer with Neoadjuvant Therapy

Characteristic	No.	MPR–(n=90)	MPR+ (n=18)	p-value^a)	Total (n=108)
Age (yr)	108	61 (55-68)	62 (53-64)	0.629	62 (54-67)
Sex	108
Male		68 (75.6)	18 (100)	0.021	86 (79.2)
Female		22 (24.4)	0		22 (20.4)
Smoking status	108
Never		24 (26.7)	2 (11.1)	0.346	26 (24.1)
Former		37 (41.1)	8 (44.4)		45 (41.7)
Current		29 (32.2)	8 (44.4)		37 (34.3)
Histologic subtype	108
ADC		57 (63.3)	7 (38.9)	0.132	64 (59.3)
SqCC		28 (31.1)	10 (55.6)		38 (35.2)
Others^b)		5 (5.6)	1 (5.6)		6 (5.6)
cStage	108
II		5 (5.6)	2 (11.1)	0.312	7 (6.5)
III		64 (71.1)	14 (77.8)		78 (72.2)
IV		21 (23.3)	2 (11.1)		23 (21.3)
ypStage	108
0		0	6 (33.3)	< 0.001	6 (5.6)
I		6 (6.7)	7 (38.9)		13 (12.0)
II		15 (16.7)	1 (5.6)		16 (14.8)
III		52 (57.8)	4 (22.2)		56 (51.9)
IV		17 (18.9)	0		17 (15.7)
Tumor size reduction^c)	85
< 30%		59 (80.8)	2 (16.7)	< 0.001	61 (71.8)
≥ 30%		14 (19.2)	10 (83.3)		24 (28.2)
Nodal downstaging	108
Absent		68 (75.6)	8 (44.4)	0.008	76 (70.4)
Present		22 (24.4)	10 (55.6)		32 (29.6)
Resection type	108
Lobectomy		71 (78.9)	12 (66.7)	0.436	83 (76.9)
Bilobectomy		7 (7.8)	2 (11.1)		9 (8.3)
Pneumonectomy		12 (13.3)	4 (22.2)		16 (14.8)
R class	108
0		84 (93.3)	16 (88.9)	0.618	100 (92.6)
1/2		6 (6.7)	2 (11.1)		8 (7.4)
Neoadjuvant therapy type	108
CCRT		5 (5.6)	8 (44.4)	< 0.001	13 (12.0)
Chemotherapy only		85 (94.4)	10 (55.6)		95 (88.0)
Neoadjuvant regimen	102
Gemcitabine/Platinum		71 (82.6)	9 (56.2)	0.024	80 (78.4)
Paclitaxel/Platinum		10 (11.6)	6 (37.5)		16 (15.7)
Pemetrexed/Platinum		4 (4.7)	0		4 (3.9)
Others^d)		1 (1.2)	1 (6.2)		2 (2.0)
Neoadjuvant cycle	104	2 (2-3)	3.5 (2.75-4)	0.004	3 (2-3)
Adjuvant therapy	108
No		19 (21.1)	11 (61.1)	< 0.001	30 (27.8)
Yes		71 (78.9)	7 (38.9)		78 (72.2)
EGFR gene alteration	73
Positive		26 (39.4)	0	0.046	26 (35.6)
Negative		40 (60.6)	7 (100)		47 (64.4)
ALK gene alteration	71
Positive		3 (4.8)	0	> 0.99	3 (4.2)
Negative		59 (95.2)	9 (100)		68 (95.8)
KRAS gene alteration	49
Positive		8 (17.4)	0	> 0.99	8 (16.3)
Negative		38 (82.6)	3 (100)		41 (83.7)
Pleural invasion	108
Absent		50 (55.6)	16 (88.9)	0.008	66 (61.1)
Present		40 (44.4)	2 (11.1)		42 (38.9)
Lymphovascular invasion	108
Absent		18 (20.0)	14 (77.8)	< 0.001	32 (29.6)
Present		72 (80.0)	4 (22.2)		76 (70.4)
Perineural invasion	108
Absent		72 (80.0)	18 (100)	0.039	90 (83.3)
Present		18 (20.0)	0		18 (16.7)
STAS^e)	108
Absent		42 (46.7)	18 (100)	< 0.001	60 (55.6)
Grade I		24 (26.7)	0		24 (22.2)
Grade II		24 (26.7)	0		24 (22.2)

Characteristic	No.	OS			EFS			LCS
Characteristic	No.	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value
Age (yr)	108	1.03	1.00-1.06	0.024	-	-		1.03	1.00-1.06	0.059
Histologic subtype	108
ADC	64	-	-			Reference		-	-
SqCC	38	-	-		0.60	0.36-1.01	0.053	-	-
Others	6	-	-		1.49	0.53-4.17	0.447	-	-
cStage	108
≥ IIIB	47		Reference			Reference			Reference
≤ IIIA	61	0.67	0.40-1.10	0.113	0.66	0.42-1.04	0.075	0.58	0.33-1.02	0.061
MPR status	108
MPR–	90		Reference			Reference			Reference
MPR+	18	0.41	0.17-0.95	0.038	0.28	0.12-0.65	0.003	0.18	0.04-0.76	0.019

Table 1. Clinical and histopathologic characteristics by MPR status

Wilcoxon rank-sum test; Pearson’s chi-squared test; Fisher’s exact test,

Others include two patients diagnosed as adenosquamous carcinoma, two patients as sarcomatoid carcinoma, one patient as large cell undifferentiated carcinoma, and one patient as poorly differentiated NSCLC,

Tumor size reduction was assessed based on the tumor longitudinal diameter confirmed by computed tomography (CT) at two different points of time; one was by the time of initial diagnosis, and the other was by the last CT before surgery after neoadjuvant therapy was completed,

Others include one patient treated with doxorubicin/cisplatin, and one patient with etoposide/cisplatin,

STAS was classified into two groups by its distance from the main tumor. STAS I: < 2,500 μm [one field of ×10 objective lens] from the edge of main tumor and STAS II: ≥ 2,500 μm from the edge of main tumor.

Table 2. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression model for OS, EFS, and LCS