ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2012
Thoracic neoplasms at the Jena reference center for soft tissue tumors.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiregion gene expression profiling reveals heterogeneity in molecular subtypes and immunotherapy response signatures in lung cancer.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2018Article
- Lung cancer: developments, concepts, and specific aspects of the new WHO classification.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2016Review
- [Lung cancer. Developments, concepts and preview of the new WHO classification].Der Pathologe · 2014Review
- [The new WHO classification and recent results in soft tissue tumor pathology].Der Pathologe · 2013Review
- [What's new in lung pathology: minutes from the Pulmonary Pathology Working Group of the German Society of Pathology].Der Pathologe · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Jena Soft Tissue Tumor Reference Center is the major German pathology institute for consultation of malignant mesenchymal tumors. Here, we present the clinicopathological data on thoracic soft tissue tumors of a two-year period.
methodsThe tumors were analyzed according to their localization, type (soft tissue tumor, other tumor type, non-neoplastic lesion) and biological behavior. The frequency of the defined soft tissue tumor entities were considered after categorizing the cases according to the WHO Classification of Tumors. Gender and age were also assessed.
resultsIn total, 1,071 cases of thoracic tumors were recorded within the 2 years. The majority were non-epithelial lesions (75.3%, n = 806/1,071), of which 68.1% (n = 549/806) were malignant or intermediate malignant. 107 non-epithelial lesions involved the lung and 37 the pleura. By far the most common lung and pleural tumors were undifferentiated sarcomas. In the lung, other frequent entities were solitary fibrous tumors, synovial sarcomas and leiomyosarcomas. We also recorded 13 non-epithelial tumors of the heart and 66 tumors of the breast with angiosarcomas being the most frequent subtype. There was a female predominance for vascular neoplasms, while men prevailed for adipocytic tumors.
conclusionsOur study provides information about the frequency, distribution, age and gender of patients with thoracic soft tissue tumors including several rare entities. Thus, it may help in the differential diagnosis of these neoplasms. In addition, we present a model highlighting the potential progression of lung carcinoma to undifferentiated sarcoma via the process of epithelial-mesenchymal transition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.