OBJECTIVES: Lepidic growth pattern @entity2220 commonly presents as a dominant lesion (DL) with associated pulmonary nodules either in the ipsilateral or contralateral lung fields, posing a challenge in clinical decision-making. These @entity5 may be clinically upstaged compared with those who present with solitary lesions and, as a result, may be offered different therapies. The purpose of this study is to compare recurrence rates, the development of new lesions and survival in @entity1 with @entity420 with a lepidic component presenting with a DL with or without additional nodules. METHODS: We performed a 13-year retrospective chart review of @entity1 with lepidic growth pattern @entity420 . @entity1 were grouped into a uninodular group (UG) if they presented with a solitary lesion and a @entity1376 ( @entity1376 ) if they had a DL with additional nodules. Clinicopathological features, outcomes and survival between the two groups were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 149 @entity1 were identified: 62 (42%) in the UG and 87 (58%) in the @entity1376 . In addition to the DL, 217 nodules were preoperatively identified in the @entity1376 : 60 were resected concomitantly with the DL, while 157 were radiologically surveyed. Invasive @entity420 was the predominant pathological cell type in both groups. The median time of follow-up was 3 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.9-5.1]. Local (1 vs 2%), regional (1 vs 3%) and distant recurrences (7 vs 4%) were detected, respectively, in the UG and the @entity1376 . In the UG, 20 new lesions were identified, while in the @entity1376 there were 28. Only 4 of 157 (2.5%) surveyed pre-existing lesions were found to be malignant and required further treatment. No statistically significant differences were observed in 5-year disease-free and overall survival between the UG and the @entity1376 (82.3 vs 83.8%, P = 0.254 and 86.7 vs 93.8%, P = 0.096, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that @entity1 with lepidic growth pattern @entity420 presenting with a DL with associated secondary nodules appear to behave similarly to @entity1 with a solitary lesion. Multiple nodules including those that are malignant in this specific subset of @entity1149 should not be upstaged as @entity1442 and @entity1 should be treated with the same curative intent as those presenting with uninodular disease.

@entity1 with multiple nodules and a dominant @entity2220 have similar outcomes and survival compared with @entity1 who have a solitary XXXX

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumours'] @entity1376 :: ('MESH:C564546', 'Disease') :: ['multinodular group', 'MG'] @entity1149 :: ('MESH:D002289', 'Disease') :: ['non-small-cell lung cancer'] @entity420 :: ('MESH:D000230', 'Disease') :: ['adenocarcinoma'] @entity1442 :: ('MESH:D020178', 'Disease') :: ['advanced disease'] @entity2220 :: ('MESH:C538231', 'Disease') :: ['lung adenocarcinoma']
@entity420 :: (MESH:D000230,Disease) :: ['adenocarcinoma']
