Table 1.
Relationships between most predominant and second most predominant histologic patterns.
| Most Predominant Pattern | No. of Lesions with Second Most Predominant Pattern | Total No. (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lepidic | Acinar | Papillary | MP | Solid | ||
| Lepidic | 3 † | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 (16.6) |
| Acinar | 90 | 44 † | 31 | 6 | 12 | 183 (63.1) |
| Papillary | 2 | 15 | 6 † | 4 | 4 | 31 (10.7) |
| MP | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0 † | 0 | 8 (2.7) |
| Solid | 1 | 11 | 0 | 2 | 6 † | 20 (6.9) |
| Total No. (%) | 97 (33.5) | 119 (41.0) | 40 (13.8) | 12 (4.1) | 22 (7.6) | 290 (100) |
Note. MP = micropapillary, † = number of lesions with pure pathologic pattern. Histologic subgroups were divided into low grade (lepidic), intermediate grade (acinar and papillary), and high grade (micropapillary and solid) of prognostic significance.