Abstract
Background
Lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (LIMA) is a rare and distinct subtype of lung cancer, characterized by a relatively poor prognosis. Among LIMA patients, distant metastasis (DM) is a commonly observed and fatal feature, however, the prognostic patterns in these patients remain poorly understood. Identifying the factors influencing DM and prognosis in LIMA patients is crucial for improving individualized management and treatment strategies. This study aimed to identify key factors associated with LIMA-related DM and prognosis, and construct predictive nomograms to guide clinical practice.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, including LIMA patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for DM in LIMA patients, while Cox regression analysis was used to determine independent prognostic factors for LIMA patients with DM. Based on these analyses, two nomograms were developed to predict the incidence and prognosis of DM in LIMA patients. The performance of these monograms was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis (DCA), calibration curves, and Kaplan-Meier (K-M) analyses.
Results
A total of 4,439 LIMA patients were included in the study, of which 830 patients presented with DM at the time of diagnosis. Independent risk factors for DM in LIMA patients included primary tumor site, histological grade, T-stage, and N-stage. Prognostic factors for LIMA patients with DM were age, sex, grade, tumor size, T-stage, N-stage, receipt of surgery, and chemotherapy. The validation of the nomograms in both the training and validation cohorts demonstrated robust predictive accuracy for the incidence and prognosis of DM in LIMA patients, as evidenced by the ROC curves, calibration curves, DCA, and K-M analysis.
Conclusions
Two nomograms were developed to predict the risk of DM and the prognosis of LIMA patients with DM. Both nomograms demonstrated high predictive accuracy and may serve as useful tools for personalized clinical decision-making, facilitating the management of LIMA patients with DM.
Keywords: Lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (LIMA), distant metastasis (DM), nomogram, predictor, prognosis
Highlight box.
Key findings
• A total of 4,439 lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (LIMA) patients were included, with 830 having distant metastasis (DM) at diagnosis. Independent DM risk factors: primary tumor site, histological grade, T-stage, N-stage. Independent prognostic factors for DM patients: age, sex, grade, tumor size, T-stage, N-stage, surgery, chemotherapy. Two nomograms predicting DM incidence and prognosis were developed, showing high accuracy in training/validation cohorts via receiver operating characteristic, decision curve analysis, and Kaplan-Meier analyses.
What is known and what is new?
• LIMA is a rare, poor-prognosis lung cancer subtype. DM is common and fatal in LIMA, but its prognostic patterns remain unclear; identifying influencing factors is critical for management.
• Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data [2004–2015], the study clarified specific DM risk/prognostic factors and developed validated nomograms for predicting DM occurrence and DM patients’ prognosis.
What is the implication, and what should change now?
• The nomograms enable personalized clinical decision-making to optimize LIMA-DM patient management.
• Clinicians could adopt these nomograms for risk/prognosis assessment; further validation in more diverse cohorts is needed.
Introduction
Lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (LIMA) is a rare lung cancer subtype with poor-prognosis, accounting for 2–10% of all cases (1-4). It is recognized for its distinct histopathological features and unique molecular characteristics, which contribute to its variable prognosis (4-6). Despite its recognition, the clinicopathological features of LIMA remain poorly understood, and early detection is challenging due to its relatively low incidence (7,8). As a result, LIMA is often misdiagnosed in the early stages of the disease. Moreover, in advanced stages, LIMA tends to exhibit widespread multi-organ metastasis, which is associated with a poor prognosis (9,10). These factors contribute to the limited availability of systemic therapeutic options, as targetable biomarkers for LIMA are scarce or nonexistent.
Over recent years, there has been growing interest in the genetic and molecular profiles of LIMA, leading to significant advances in the understanding of its pathogenesis (4,11,12). However, clinical management of LIMA, particularly in patients with distant metastasis (DM), remains a subject of debate, with no standardized guidelines available (13,14). This gap in knowledge highlights the need for more precise clinical decision-making tools for LIMA patients, especially those with DM, to improve prognostic accuracy and guide treatment strategies. To date, few studies have examined the relationship between clinicopathological characteristics and the metastatic behavior of LIMA. Predictive models that assess the risk of DM and survival outcomes in LIMA patients are lacking. A reliable and accurate predictive model is urgently needed to identify high-risk patients early, facilitating timely interventions and personalized treatment strategies.
Nomograms, which are effective visual tools for individualized risk prediction, have been successfully applied in various cancers to predict prognosis and guide clinical decisions (15,16). However, no nomogram has yet been developed specifically for predicting the incidence of DM and long-term survival outcomes in LIMA patients. In this study, we aimed to construct two nomogram models: one for predicting the risk of DM and another for forecasting survival outcomes in LIMA patients with DM. We present this article in accordance with the TRIPOD reporting checklist (available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-2025-aw-2283/rc).
Methods
Study population
Data for LIMA patients were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry for the period 2004–2015 (17). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (I) patients diagnosed with LIMA based on histological codes [International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3): 8480/3, 8481/3, or 8253/3] and primary site (lung and bronchus); (II) availability of clinicopathological data, including age, sex, race, laterality, primary tumor site, pathology grade, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and tumor size; (III) sufficient survival data; (IV) exclusion of patients diagnosed based on autopsy or death certificate only. A total of 4,439 LIMA patients were included in the analysis, of whom 830 had DM at diagnosis. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments.
The study cohort was randomly divided into training (70%) and validation (30%) groups. In the training cohort, a prognostic nomogram was constructed by identifying risk factors for DM in LIMA patients. In the validation cohort, the nomogram was used to assess the performance of the identified prognostic factors. For prognosis-related analysis, DM patients were categorized based on various clinical features, and the factors influencing survival were further examined. Treatment modalities, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, were considered as potential prognostic factors.
Data collection
Clinical data collected included age, sex, race, laterality, primary tumor site, pathology grade, T-stage, N-stage, and tumor size. These variables were analyzed to identify risk factors for DM in LIMA patients. Additionally, survival analyses were performed to investigate the prognostic factors for LIMA patients with DM. Three therapeutic approaches (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy) were included in the analysis to assess their impact on prognosis. The primary endpoint for survival analysis was overall survival (OS), defined as the time interval from diagnosis to death or the last follow-up.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the baseline characteristics of the study population. Continuous variables were compared using either the independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on the distribution of the data. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test.
Univariate logistic regression analysis was first performed to identify potential risk factors for DM in LIMA patients. Variables with a P value <0.05 in the univariate analysis were subsequently included in multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine the independent risk factors for DM. Similarly, Cox proportional hazards regression was applied to identify independent prognostic factors for survival in LIMA patients with DM.
Two nomograms were developed: one to predict the risk of DM and another to forecast survival outcomes for LIMA patients with DM. The predictive accuracy of the nomograms was evaluated using calibration curves and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was employed to assess the clinical utility of the nomograms by examining the net benefit across a range of threshold probabilities.
Patients were stratified into high-risk and low-risk groups based on the median risk score derived from the nomogram. The performance of the nomograms was validated in the independent validation cohort.
Data analyses were performed using R software (version 4.2.2) and relevant R packages, including “table1”, “regplot”, “pROC”, “ROCR”, “rms”, “ggDCA”, “survival”, “survminer”, “survivalROC”, and “ggplot” (18,19). A two-sided P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Clinical characteristics of the study population
After applying the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 4,439 LIMA patients were included in the study. The baseline clinical characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. Chi-squared tests revealed no significant differences in any of the variables between the training and validation cohorts. The majority of LIMA patients were elderly and female. The primary site of LIMA tumors was predominantly located in the lower lobe of the lung. Tumor size was most commonly in the 20–40 mm range (42.4%). The majority of patients had low-grade tumors (Grade I–II), and a significant proportion of patients had tumors with lower levels of infiltration (T1–T2) and no lymph node metastasis (N0). A total of 830 patients had DM (M1), with 586 in the training cohort and 244 in the validation cohort.
Table 1. Baseline clinical characteristics of LIMA patients.
| Variable | Training cohort (N=3,107) | Validation cohort (N=1,332) | Overall (N=4,439) | χ2 | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 0.370 | 0.54 | |||
| <65 | 615 (19.8) | 275 (20.6) | 890 (20.0) | ||
| ≥65 | 2,492 (80.2) | 1,057 (79.4) | 3,549 (80.0) | ||
| Sex | 0.246 | 0.62 | |||
| Female | 1,704 (54.8) | 742 (55.7) | 2,446 (55.1) | ||
| Male | 1,403 (45.2) | 590 (44.3) | 1,993 (44.9) | ||
| Race | 0.828 | 0.66 | |||
| Black | 301 (9.7) | 123 (9.2) | 424 (9.6) | ||
| White | 2,594 (83.5) | 1,109 (83.3) | 3,703 (83.4) | ||
| Others | 212 (6.8) | 100 (7.5) | 312 (7.0) | ||
| Laterality | 0.008 | 0.93 | |||
| Left | 1,293 (41.6) | 557 (41.8) | 1,850 (41.7) | ||
| Right | 1,814 (58.4) | 775 (58.2) | 2,589 (58.3) | ||
| Primary site | 3.284 | 0.35 | |||
| Lower lobe | 1,523 (49.0) | 656 (49.2) | 2,179 (49.1) | ||
| Middle lobe | 172 (5.5) | 69 (5.2) | 241 (5.4) | ||
| Upper lobe | 1,293 (41.6) | 541 (40.6) | 1,834 (41.3) | ||
| Others | 119 (3.8) | 66 (5.0) | 185 (4.2) | ||
| Grade | 0.947 | 0.62 | |||
| I | 1,518 (48.9) | 672 (50.5) | 2,190 (49.3) | ||
| II | 1,230 (39.6) | 511 (38.4) | 1,741 (39.2) | ||
| III–IV | 359 (11.6) | 149 (11.2) | 508 (11.4) | ||
| Tumor size, mm | 3.705 | 0.16 | |||
| <20 | 806 (25.9) | 325 (24.4) | 1,131 (25.5) | ||
| 20–40 | 1,289 (41.5) | 594 (44.6) | 1,883 (42.4) | ||
| >40 | 1,012 (32.6) | 413 (31.0) | 1,425 (32.1) | ||
| T | 0.409 | 0.82 | |||
| T1 | 1,162 (37.4) | 490 (36.8) | 1,652 (37.2) | ||
| T2 | 1,251 (40.3) | 550 (41.3) | 1,801 (40.6) | ||
| T3–T4 | 694 (22.3) | 292 (21.9) | 986 (22.2) | ||
| N | 2.514 | 0.47 | |||
| N0 | 2,287 (73.6) | 999 (75.0) | 3,286 (74.0) | ||
| N1 | 227 (7.3) | 102 (7.7) | 329 (7.4) | ||
| N2 | 487 (15.7) | 195 (14.6) | 682 (15.4) | ||
| N3 | 106 (3.4) | 36 (2.7) | 142 (3.2) | ||
| M | 0.146 | 0.70 | |||
| M0 | 2,521 (81.1) | 1,088 (81.7) | 3,609 (81.3) | ||
| M1 | 586 (18.9) | 244 (18.3) | 830 (18.7) |
Data are presented as n (%). LIMA, lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; M, metastasis; N, node; T, tumor.
Risk variables of DM in LIMA patients
To identify risk factors associated with DM in LIMA patients, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The univariate analysis identified six factors significantly associated with DM: age, primary tumor site, grade, tumor size, T-stage, and N-stage (Table 2). Subsequently, multivariate logistic regression revealed that four factors—primary site, grade, T-stage, and N-stage—were independently associated with the presence of DM in LIMA patients.
Table 2. Logistic analyses of distant metastasis in LIMA patients.
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P | OR | 95% CI | P | ||
| Age, years | |||||||
| <65 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| ≥65 | 0.938 | 0.916–0.961 | <0.001 | 0.854 | 0.688–1.064 | 0.16 | |
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | Reference | ||||||
| Male | 1.019 | 0.999–1.039 | 0.12 | ||||
| Race | |||||||
| Black | Reference | ||||||
| White | 0.982 | 0.950–1.014 | 0.35 | ||||
| Others | 0.962 | 0.917–1.009 | 0.19 | ||||
| Laterality | |||||||
| Left | Reference | ||||||
| Right | 0.162 | 0.997–1.037 | 0.16 | ||||
| Primary site | |||||||
| Lower lobe | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Middle lobe | 1.021 | 0.978–1.065 | 0.43 | 1.177 | 0.765–1.770 | 0.45 | |
| Upper lobe | 1.056 | 1.035–1.077 | <0.001 | 1.075 | 0.883–1.309 | 0.47 | |
| Others | 1.533 | 1.462–1.609 | <0.001 | 5.063 | 3.494–7.350 | <0.001 | |
| Grade | |||||||
| I | Reference | Reference | |||||
| II | 1.083 | 1.061–1.105 | <0.001 | 1.122 | 0.913–1.379 | 0.27 | |
| III–IV | 1.257 | 1.218–1.296 | <0.001 | 1.342 | 1.016–1.768 | 0.04 | |
| Tumor size, mm | |||||||
| <20 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| 20–40 | 1.069 | 1.043–1.095 | <0.001 | 1.152 | 0.882–1.509 | 0.30 | |
| >40 | 1.169 | 1.139–1.198 | <0.001 | 1.215 | 0.902–1.641 | 0.20 | |
| T | |||||||
| T1 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| T2 | 1.045 | 1.025–1.066 | <0.001 | 1.225 | 0.926–4.624 | 0.16 | |
| T3–T4 | 1.526 | 1.491–1.562 | <0.001 | 6.399 | 4.910–8.375 | <0.001 | |
| N | |||||||
| N0 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| N1 | 1.099 | 1.062–1.136 | <0.001 | 1.514 | 1.086–2.087 | 0.01 | |
| N2 | 1.429 | 1.395–1.464 | <0.001 | 4.379 | 3.520–5.450 | <0.001 | |
| N3 | 1.970 | 1.875–2.071 | <0.001 | 17.619 | 11.325–28.053 | <0.001 | |
CI, confidence interval; LIMA, lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; N, node; OR, odds ratio; T, tumor.
Diagnostic nomogram of DM in LIMA patients
Based on the independent risk factors identified, a diagnostic nomogram was constructed to predict the likelihood of DM in LIMA patients (Figure 1A). The nomogram demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance, with a ROC curve area under the curve (AUC) of 0.836 in the training cohort (Figure 1B). DCA confirmed the clinical reliability of this nomogram (Figure 1C), and calibration curves showed good agreement between observed and predicted outcomes (Figure 1D).
Figure 1.
Establishment of a diagnostic nomogram. A nomogram to predict the risk of DM in LIMA patients (A). The ROC curve (B), DCA (C), and calibration curve (D) of the training cohort, and the ROC curve (E), DCA (F), and calibration curve (G) of the validation cohort. *, P<0.05; ***, P<0.001. AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; DCA, decision curve analysis; DM, distant metastasis; LIMA, lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; N, node; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; T, tumor.
To validate the nomogram, it was tested in the independent validation cohort, yielding an AUC of 0.846 (Figure 1E). The DCA and calibration curves for the validation cohort further validated the excellent diagnostic performance of the nomogram (Figure 1F,1G).
For comparison, the ROC curves for each independent clinical variable were plotted, showing that the AUC for the nomogram was superior to that of any individual variable in both the training and validation cohorts (Figure 2A,2B).
Figure 2.
The AUCs were compared between the training cohort (A) and validation cohort (B) with each independent factor. AUC, area under the curve; N, node; T, tumor.
Prognostic factors for LIMA patients with DM
In the 830 LIMA patients with DM, various clinical and treatment-related factors were analyzed to identify prognostic variables. The demographic and clinical characteristics are detailed in Table 3. The majority of patients were older adults (74.5%), with the white race being the most prevalent (83.3%). Most patients had right-sided tumors (60.5%). No significant differences were found between the training and validation cohorts based on Chi-squared tests.
Table 3. Baseline clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed as LIMA with DM.
| Variable | Training cohort (N=586) | Validation cohort (N=244) | Overall (N=830) | χ2 | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 0.101 | 0.75 | |||
| <65 | 152 (25.9) | 60 (24.6) | 212 (25.5) | ||
| ≥65 | 434 (74.1) | 184 (75.4) | 618 (74.5) | ||
| Sex | 1.478 | 0.22 | |||
| Female | 317 (54.1) | 120 (49.2) | 437 (52.7) | ||
| Male | 269 (45.9) | 124 (50.8) | 393 (47.3) | ||
| Race | 1.872 | 0.39 | |||
| Black | 60 (10.2) | 27 (11.1) | 87 (10.5) | ||
| White | 485 (82.8) | 206 (84.4) | 691 (83.3) | ||
| Others | 41 (7.0) | 11 (4.5) | 52 (6.3) | ||
| Laterality | 0.003 | 0.96 | |||
| Left | 232 (39.6) | 96 (39.3) | 328 (39.5) | ||
| Right | 354 (60.4) | 148 (60.7) | 502 (60.5) | ||
| Primary site | 6.131 | 0.10 | |||
| Lower lobe | 228 (38.9) | 89 (36.5) | 317 (38.2) | ||
| Middle lobe | 29 (4.9) | 11 (4.5) | 40 (4.8) | ||
| Upper lobe | 265 (45.2) | 102 (41.8) | 367 (44.2) | ||
| Others | 64 (10.9) | 42 (17.2) | 106 (12.8) | ||
| Grade | 0.059 | 0.97 | |||
| I | 199 (34.0) | 85 (34.8) | 284 (34.2) | ||
| II | 258 (44.0) | 106 (43.4) | 364 (43.9) | ||
| III–IV | 129 (22.0) | 53 (21.7) | 182 (21.9) | ||
| Tumor size, mm | 0.043 | 0.98 | |||
| <20 | 86 (14.7) | 37 (15.2) | 123 (14.8) | ||
| 20–40 | 234 (39.9) | 96 (39.3) | 330 (39.8) | ||
| >40 | 266 (45.4) | 111 (45.5) | 377 (45.4) | ||
| T | 1.399 | 0.50 | |||
| T1 | 93 (15.9) | 31 (12.7) | 124 (14.9) | ||
| T2 | 149 (25.4) | 66 (27.0) | 215 (25.9) | ||
| T3–T4 | 344 (58.7) | 147 (60.2) | 491 (59.2) | ||
| N | 4.050 | 0.26 | |||
| N0 | 229 (39.1) | 111 (45.5) | 340 (41.0) | ||
| N1 | 48 (8.2) | 17 (7.0) | 65 (7.8) | ||
| N2 | 224 (38.2) | 90 (36.9) | 314 (37.8) | ||
| N3 | 85 (14.5) | 26 (10.7) | 111 (13.4) | ||
| Surgery | 3.432 | 0.06 | |||
| No | 426 (72.7) | 161 (66.0) | 587 (70.7) | ||
| Yes | 160 (27.3) | 83 (34.0) | 243 (29.3) | ||
| Chemotherapy | 1.300 | 0.25 | |||
| No | 272 (46.4) | 102 (41.8) | 374 (45.1) | ||
| Yes | 314 (53.6) | 142 (58.2) | 456 (54.9) | ||
| Radiotherapy | 0.237 | 0.63 | |||
| No | 377 (64.3) | 162 (66.4) | 539 (64.9) | ||
| Yes | 209 (35.7) | 82 (33.6) | 291 (35.1) |
Data are presented as n (%). DM, distant metastasis; LIMA, lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; N, node; T, tumor.
Table 4 presents the results of Cox regression analyses for prognostic factors. These analyses revealed that age, sex, race, laterality, grade, tumor size, T-stage, N-stage, and treatment modalities (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy) were significantly associated with prognosis. However, only grade, tumor size, T-stage, and chemotherapy were identified as independent prognostic factors for survival in LIMA patients with DM.
Table 4. Cox analyses in LIMA patients with DM.
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P | OR | 95% CI | P | ||
| Age, years | |||||||
| <65 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| ≥65 | 1.444 | 1.221–1.708 | <0.001 | 1.433 | 1.201–1.709 | <0.001 | |
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Male | 1.341 | 1.162–1.548 | <0.001 | 1.307 | 1.129–1.512 | <0.001 | |
| Race | |||||||
| Black | Reference | ||||||
| White | 0.887 | 0.701–1.122 | 0.32 | ||||
| Others | 0.703 | 0.487–1.014 | 0.06 | ||||
| Laterality | |||||||
| Left | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Right | 1.186 | 1.023–1.373 | 0.02 | 1.156 | 0.995–1.342 | 0.058 | |
| Primary site | |||||||
| Lower lobe | Reference | ||||||
| Middle lobe | 0.913 | 0.642–1.297 | 0.61 | ||||
| Upper lobe | 1.073 | 0.916–1.258 | 0.38 | ||||
| Others | 1.071 | 0.853–1.345 | 0.55 | ||||
| Grade | |||||||
| I | Reference | Reference | |||||
| II | 1.365 | 1.157–1.609 | <0.001 | 1.222 | 1.028–1.454 | 0.02 | |
| III–IV | 1.628 | 1.337–1.981 | <0.001 | 1.293 | 1.052–1.590 | 0.002 | |
| Tumor size, mm | |||||||
| <20 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| 20–40 | 1.532 | 1.220–1.925 | <0.001 | 1.361 | 1.072–1.728 | 0.01 | |
| >40 | 2.020 | 1.614–2.529 | <0.001 | 1.597 | 1.239–2.058 | <0.001 | |
| T | |||||||
| T1 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| T2 | 1.376 | 1.082–1.751 | <0.001 | 1.038 | 0.793–1.359 | 0.79 | |
| T3–T4 | 1.741 | 1.404–2.160 | <0.001 | 1.305 | 1.030–1.653 | 0.03 | |
| N | |||||||
| N0 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| N1 | 1.294 | 0.977–1.713 | 0.07 | 1.163 | 0.872–1.552 | 0.30 | |
| N2 | 1.670 | 1.418–1.966 | <0.001 | 1.418 | 1.182–1.701 | <0.001 | |
| N3 | 1.877 | 1.499–2.351 | <0.001 | 1.469 | 1.148–1.879 | 0.002 | |
| Surgery | |||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Yes | 0.458 | 0.388–0.542 | <0.001 | 0.533 | 0.443–0.641 | <0.001 | |
| Chemotherapy | |||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Yes | 0.721 | 0.624–0.833 | <0.001 | 0.575 | 0.494–0.670 | <0.001 | |
| Radiotherapy | |||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Yes | 1.223 | 1.053–1.420 | 0.008 | 1.044 | 0.892–1.223 | 0.59 | |
CI, confidence interval; DM, distant metastasis; LIMA, lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; N, node; OR, odds ratio; T, tumor.
Prognostic nomogram for LIMA patients with DM
Using the independent prognostic variables, a prognostic nomogram was developed to predict the survival probability of LIMA patients with DM (Figure 3). Calibration curves for 12-, 24-, and 36-month survival demonstrated good concordance between observed and predicted survival outcomes in the training cohort (Figure 4A-4C). DCA further confirmed the clinical utility and efficiency of this nomogram in the training cohort (Figure 4D-4F). Consistent results were observed in the validation cohort, with calibration curves (Figure 5A-5C) and DCA (Figure 5D-5F) both verifying the model’s robust performance.
Figure 3.
A prognostic nomogram for predicting the 12-, 24-, and 36-month OS of LIMA patients with DM. *, P<0.05; **, P<0.01; ***, P<0.001. DM, distant metastasis; LIMA, lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; N, node; OS, overall survival; T, tumor.
Figure 4.
Performance validation of the prognostic nomogram for 12-, 24-, and 36-month OS in the training cohort. (A) Calibration curve for 12-month OS; (B) calibration curve for 24-month OS; (C) calibration curve for 36-month OS; (D) DCA for 12-month OS; (E) DCA for 24-month OS; (F) DCA for 36-month OS. DCA, decision curve analysis; OS, overall survival.
Figure 5.
The calibration curves of the nomogram for the different periods in the training cohort. (A) Calibration curve for 12-month OS; (B) calibration curve for 24-month OS; (C) calibration curve for 36-month OS; (D) DCA for 12-month OS; (E) DCA for 24-month OS; (F) DCA for 36-month OS. DCA, decision curve analysis; OS, overall survival.
Patients were stratified into low- and high-risk groups based on the median survival time in the training cohort. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival analysis showed that low-risk patients had significantly better OS than high-risk patients (Figure 6A,6B). The ROC curves for the nomogram in the training cohort for 12-, 24-, and 36-month survival yielded AUCs of 0.751, 0.754, and 0.784, respectively (Figure 6C), and in the validation cohort, the AUCs were 0.766, 0.783, and 0.781 (Figure 6D). These findings further confirm the strong discriminative ability of the nomogram for predicting the prognosis of LIMA patients with DM.
Figure 6.
Survival discrimination and time-dependent predictive accuracy of the prognostic nomogram. (A) Kaplan-Meier survival curves in the training cohort; (B) Kaplan-Meier survival curves in the validation cohort; (C) time-dependent ROC curves for 12-, 24-, and 36-month OS in the training cohort; (D) time-dependent ROC curves for 12-, 24-, and 36-month OS in the validation cohort. AUC, area under the curve; OS, overall survival; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
Additionally, a comparison of the prognostic nomogram with individual independent prognostic factors revealed that the nomogram provided greater predictive value for survival at 12, 24, and 36 months (Figure 7A-7F).
Figure 7.
Comparison of area under the ROC curves between nomogram and each independent factor, for the 12-month (A,D), 24-month (B,E), and 36-month (C,F) in the training and validation cohort. AUC, area under the curve; N, node; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; T, tumor.
Prognostic comparison between DM and non-metastatic LIMA patients
Using the independent prognostic variables, a prognostic nomogram was developed to predict the survival probability of LIMA patients with non-metastatic (Figure 8). It can be observed that the presence of DM is a significant adverse prognostic factor for LIMA. The survival curve of the DM group was significantly lower than that of the non-metastatic group, and the difference was highly statistically significant (Figure 9).
Figure 8.
A prognostic nomogram for predicting the OS of LIMA patients with non-metastatic. LIMA, lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; N, node; OS, overall survival; SUR, surgical; T, tumor.
Figure 9.
Comparison of OS between DM and non-metastatic of LIMA. DM, distant metastasis; LIMA, lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; OS, overall survival.
Discussion
LIMA is a rare subtype of lung adenocarcinoma, characterized by atypical clinical manifestations. It is often misdiagnosed as tuberculosis or pneumonia in its early stages (20-22). LIMA is also highly aggressive and metastatic, with a strong propensity for DM in advanced stages, which significantly contributes to its poor prognosis (9,10,23). Therefore, identifying risk factors and prognostic indicators for DM in LIMA patients is critical for improving clinical management and outcomes.
Currently, while several studies have explored the molecular markers associated with DM in LIMA patients (14,24,25), most have focused on genetic and molecular biomarkers rather than clinical factors. For example, HNF4a, MUC6, CSK2, and GATA6 have been proposed as potential biomarkers linked to DM in LIMA (4,26-28). However, to our knowledge, no predictive models have been established for early detection of DM in LIMA based on these markers. This study represents the first large-scale, systematic effort to develop nomogram models that evaluate both the risk of DM and the prognosis of LIMA patients with DM. The findings from various validation methods demonstrate that these nomograms exhibit robust predictive ability, offering valuable tools for clinical risk stratification and prognosis prediction.
In our study, we found that the prevalence of DM among LIMA patients was 18.7%. Several significant risk factors for DM were identified, including primary tumor site, grade, T-stage, and N-stage. Notably, age was not found to be significantly associated with the presence of DM, which differs from some previous studies that reported an age-related risk (29). Our results also confirm the previously recognized association between the TNM stages and the occurrence of DM. Importantly, the diagnostic nomogram developed in this study demonstrated superior predictive power when compared to each individual clinical variable, emphasizing the value of a comprehensive, multi-variable predictive model. However, it is worth noting that due to the limitations of the SEER database, smoking status could not be included in our analysis, although it is an important factor that may influence the development of DM in LIMA.
The prognosis of LIMA patients, particularly those with DM, remains poorly understood, and survival data for this specific cohort are sparse (11,25,30,31). Discrepancies in survival outcomes across studies suggest that the prognosis of LIMA patients has yet to reach a clinical consensus. Our study fills this gap by developing a predictive nomogram for survival outcomes in LIMA patients with DM. The nomogram outperformed individual predictors, highlighting its potential to guide clinical decision-making and tailor treatment strategies. Our findings provide a novel approach for predicting patient prognosis and enhancing personalized care.
Surgical resection remains an important treatment option for LIMA patients, as it has been shown to extend survival (32-35). However, many LIMA patients are diagnosed with metastatic disease at an advanced stage and are not candidates for surgery. In these cases, chemotherapy is often the next treatment option. Our study reinforces the importance of surgery and chemotherapy in improving survival in LIMA patients with DM, in line with previous reports (10,29). Interestingly, radiotherapy did not significantly impact survival outcomes, suggesting that its role in treatment may be limited and warrants further investigation. Our study also confirmed that older age and male sex are associated with worse prognosis, which aligns with established findings in lung cancer research. Similarly, tumor size was a significant predictor of survival, consistent with previous studies in other lung cancer subtypes (34). Additionally, higher T-stage, N-stage, and tumor grade were all associated with worse survival outcomes, highlighting their importance in clinical prognosis assessment.
Despite the strengths of our study, there are several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the relatively small sample size of LIMA patients with DM (n=830) may introduce selection bias, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results. Second, the majority of the cohort was composed of white patients, which may affect the external validity of our findings in other racial and ethnic groups. Further studies in more diverse populations are needed to confirm these results. Third, the nomogram models were developed using data from the SEER database, which is based on retrospective information. Prospective validation through clinical trials and real-world data is necessary to confirm their applicability in clinical practice. Finally, while immunotherapy and targeted therapies are promising treatment modalities for various cancers, their potential role in the treatment of LIMA was not explored in this study due to the lack of relevant data in the SEER database. Future research incorporating these therapies would be valuable.
Conclusions
In conclusion, this study identifies key clinical risk factors for DM in LIMA patients and prognostic factors for those with DM using logistic and Cox regression analyses. Based on these findings, we developed two nomograms that can assist clinicians in risk stratification and personalized treatment planning. These tools have the potential to improve clinical outcomes by guiding early detection and therapeutic decisions in LIMA patients with DM.
Supplementary
The article’s supplementary files as
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the National Cancer Institute (USA) staff for contributing to the SEER program.
Ethical Statement: The authors are 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. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments.
Footnotes
Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the TRIPOD reporting checklist. Available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-2025-aw-2283/rc
Funding: None.
Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-2025-aw-2283/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
- 1.Lambe G, Durand M, Buckley A, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the lung: from BAC to the future. Insights Imaging 2020;11:69. 10.1186/s13244-020-00875-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hong JH, Park S, Kim H, et al. Volume and Mass Doubling Time of Lung Adenocarcinoma according to WHO Histologic Classification. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:464-75. 10.3348/kjr.2020.0592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sasaki T, Kuno H, Hiyama T, et al. 2021 WHO Classification of Lung Cancer: Molecular Biology Research and Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics 2024;44:e230136. 10.1148/rg.230136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Masago K, Kuroda H, Seto K, et al. Genomic Landscape of Resected Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma of the Lung. Clin Lung Cancer 2025;26:583-594.e4. 10.1016/j.cllc.2025.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Aoki A, Hara Y, Okudela K, et al. Unusual lung involvements of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma with chylothorax. Thorac Cancer 2020;11:3407-8. 10.1111/1759-7714.13665 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Higashiyama M, Kobayashi Y, Kashima J, et al. Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma of the Lung With a Mural Nodule-like Lesion. Am J Surg Pathol 2022;46:1524-32. 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001938 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Han J, Gao J, Chen D, et al. Comparative study of imaging and pathology of primary mucinous adenocarcinoma with different imaging manifestations. Clin Respir J 2024;18:e13750. 10.1111/crj.13750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Meng X, He R, Zhang W. Bilateral pulmonary cavitary mucinous adenocarcinoma in an immunocompetent patient: a case report and literature review. BMC Pulm Med 2025;25:531. 10.1186/s12890-025-03989-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chang JC, Offin M, Falcon C, et al. Comprehensive Molecular and Clinicopathologic Analysis of 200 Pulmonary Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinomas Identifies Distinct Characteristics of Molecular Subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 2021;27:4066-76. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jang YJ, Hyun DG, Choi CM, et al. Optimizing palliative chemotherapy for advanced invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung. BMC Cancer 2021;21:731. 10.1186/s12885-021-08472-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Buettner R. Invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma: genetic insights into a lung cancer entity with distinct clinical behavior and genomic features. Mod Pathol 2022;35:138-9. 10.1038/s41379-021-00945-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kim M, Hwang J, Kim KA, et al. Genomic characteristics of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung with multiple pulmonary sites of involvement. Mod Pathol 2022;35:202-9. 10.1038/s41379-021-00872-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Masai K, Tsuta K, Motoi N, et al. Clinicopathological, Immunohistochemical, and Genetic Features of Primary Lung Adenocarcinoma Occurring in the Setting of Usual Interstitial Pneumonia Pattern. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:2141-9. 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.07.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chen X, Zhao Y, Wang D, et al. The HNF4α-BC200-FMR1-Positive Feedback Loop Promotes Growth and Metastasis in Invasive Mucinous Lung Adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2021;81:5904-18. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-0980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zheng H, Wu R, Zhang G, et al. Nomograms for prognosis prediction in esophageal adenocarcinoma: realities and challenges. Clin Transl Oncol 2025;27:449-57. 10.1007/s12094-024-03589-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jiang F, Yao C. Nomograms for predicting risk and prognosis of liver metastases in ovarian cancer patients. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2025;54:102918. 10.1016/j.jogoh.2025.102918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Doll KM, Rademaker A, Sosa JA. Practical Guide to Surgical Data Sets: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database. JAMA Surg 2018;153:588-9. 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Chan BKC. Data Analysis Using R Programming. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018;1082:47-122. 10.1007/978-3-319-93791-5_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Luz CF, Berends MS, Dik JH, et al. Rapid Analysis of Diagnostic and Antimicrobial Patterns in R (RadaR): Interactive Open-Source Software App for Infection Management and Antimicrobial Stewardship. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e12843. 10.2196/12843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Shim HS, Kenudson M, Zheng Z, et al. Unique Genetic and Survival Characteristics of Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma of the Lung. J Thorac Oncol 2015;10:1156-62. 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Zuo Z, Zhang G, Chen J, et al. CT Radiomic Nomogram Using Optimal Volume of Interest for Preoperatively Predicting Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinomas in Patients with Incidental Pulmonary Nodules: A Multicenter, Large-Scale Study. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2024;23:15330338241308307. 10.1177/15330338241308307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhong F, Wu L, Liu Z, et al. Nomogram model for the diagnosis of solitary nodular pulmonary mucinous adenocarcinoma. Sci Rep 2024;14:18085. 10.1038/s41598-024-69138-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Koh MJ, Shin DH, Lee SJ, et al. Gastric-type gene expression and phenotype in non-terminal respiratory unit type adenocarcinoma of the lung with invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma morphology. Histopathology 2020;76:898-905. 10.1111/his.14077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Pang Z, Liu H, Chen Z, et al. Establishment and Validation of a Novel Nomogram for Predicting Distant Metastasis in Patients with Invasive Lung Adenocarcinoma. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2022;32:1563-9. 10.29271/jcpsp.2022.12.1563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Di Federico A, Hong L, Elkrief A, et al. Lung adenocarcinomas with mucinous histology: clinical, genomic, and immune microenvironment characterization and outcomes to immunotherapy-based treatments and KRAS(G12C) inhibitors. Ann Oncol 2025;36:297-308. 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.11.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Nakajima N, Yoshizawa A, Nakajima T, et al. GATA6-positive lung adenocarcinomas are associated with invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma morphology, hepatocyte nuclear factor 4α expression, and KRAS mutations. Histopathology 2018;73:38-48. 10.1111/his.13500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Yamanoi K, Fujii C, Yuzuriha H, et al. MUC6 expression is a preferable prognostic marker for invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung. Histochem Cell Biol 2022;157:671-84. 10.1007/s00418-022-02093-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Feng J, Hu M, Li Z, et al. Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Subunit 2 (CKS2) as a Prognostic Marker for Stages I-III Invasive Non-Mucinous Lung Adenocarcinoma and Its Role in Affecting Drug Sensitivity. Cells 2022;11:2611. 10.3390/cells11162611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Beck KS, Sung YE, Lee KY, et al. Invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung: Serial CT findings, clinical features, and treatment and survival outcomes. Thorac Cancer 2020;11:3463-72. 10.1111/1759-7714.13674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Travis WD, Asamura H, Bankier AA, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: Proposals for Coding T Categories for Subsolid Nodules and Assessment of Tumor Size in Part-Solid Tumors in the Forthcoming Eighth Edition of the TNM Classification of Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:1204-23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Xu X, Li N, Wang D, et al. Clinical Relevance of PD-L1 Expression and CD8+ T Cells' Infiltration in Patients With Lung Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma. Front Oncol 2021;11:683432. 10.3389/fonc.2021.683432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Yoon HJ, Kang J, Lee HY, et al. Recurrence dynamics after curative surgery in patients with invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung. Insights Imaging 2022;13:64. 10.1186/s13244-022-01208-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Woo W, Yang YH, Cha YJ, et al. Prognosis of resected invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma compared with the IASLC histologic grading system for invasive nonmucinous adenocarcinoma: Surgical database study in the TKIs era in Korea. Thorac Cancer 2022;13:3310-21. 10.1111/1759-7714.14687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Boland JM, Maleszewski JJ, Wampfler JA, et al. Pulmonary invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and mixed invasive mucinous/nonmucinous adenocarcinoma-a clinicopathological and molecular genetic study with survival analysis. Hum Pathol 2018;71:8-19. 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Shen F, Wu X, Geng J, et al. Prognostic factors for resected invasive mucinous lung adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2024;24:1317. 10.1186/s12885-024-13068-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]