Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Characteristics of lung cancer in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with single lung transplant versus non-transplanted patients: a retrospective observational study
  1. Evgeni Gershman1,2,
  2. Alona Zer2,3,
  3. Barak Pertzov1,2,
  4. Osnat Shtraichman1,2,
  5. Dorit Shitenberg1,2,
  6. Moshe Heching1,2,
  7. Dror Rosengarten1,2 and
  8. Mordechai Kramer1,2
  1. 1Pulmonary Institute, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel
  2. 2Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
  3. 3Davidoff Oncology Institute, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel
  1. Correspondence to Dr Evgeni Gershman; evgeni83{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have significantly higher incidence of lung cancer (LC) relative to the general population. There is a further increase in LC incidence in patients with IPF subsequent to lung transplant, specifically in patients with IPF undergoing single lung transplant.

Objectives To examine the incidence and characteristics of LC in patients with IPF during follow-up and after lung transplantation (LTX).

Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients with IPF diagnosed with LC in Rabin Medical Center, Israel, over an 11-year period. We compared the characteristics of transplanted patients with IPF diagnosed with LC to patients with IPF who did not undergo lung transplant. Data were accessed from database registries using the words ‘fibrosis’, ‘lung-cancer’ and ‘lung-transplantation’. Demographic parameters included age, gender and smoking history (pack years). Clinical-pathological parameters included lapse in time from IPF diagnosis to LC, type of malignancy, affected pulmonary lobe, and stage at diagnosis, oncological treatment and survival.

Results Between 2008 and 2018, 205 patients with IPF underwent lung transplantation at our medical centre. Double LTX was performed in 83 and single LTX in 122 cases. Subsequently, 15 (12.3%) single LTX patients were diagnosed with LC during the study period. During the same period, of 497 non-transplanted patients with IPF followed in our centre, 45 (9.1%) were diagnosed with LC. In all 15 transplanted patients with IPF, LC was diagnosed exclusively in the native fibrotic lung. LC incidence was higher in the transplanted as compared with the non-transplanted group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (OR=0.7, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32, p=0.28). At LC diagnosis, the non-transplanted group was older than the transplanted group with average age of 67.7 versus 60.8 years, respectively (p=0.006). Both groups showed male predominance. In both groups, LC was primarily peripheral, lower lobe predominant and most frequently squamous cell carcinoma. The median survival time after LC diagnosis was 4 months in the transplanted group and 11 months in the non-transplanted group (p=0.19). Multivariate analysis showed improved survival in the non-transplanted group among those patients who received oncological treatment.

Conclusion Chest CT should be performed regularly in order to evaluate IPF patients for potential LC. Single lung transplant IPF patients face an increased risk of post-transplant LC in the native fibrotic lung. Where practicable, IPF patients should be prioritised for double lung transplant.

  • interstitial fibrosis
  • lung cancer
  • lung transplantation
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All named authors had a substantial contribution to the conception and design of the work, the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. All authors are in approval of the version published. All authors are in agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. EG: principal investigator and responsible for study design and conception, data collection, results interpretation, statistical analysis, drafting, writing and submitting the manuscript. AZ: design and conception, data collection, oncological perspective, results interpretation, drafting and writing. BP: design and conception, data collection, results interpretation, statistical analysis, drafting and writing. MH, OS, DR and DS: design and conception, data collection, results interpretation, drafting and writing. MK: supervisor physician of the study and was responsible for designing the study and conception, results interpretation, drafting the article and revising its content.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.