ArticleOncology letters2015
Interpretation of a heterogeneous radiological response as tumor heterogeneity or a non-tumor diagnosis: A case report.
Article in Oncology letters, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heterogeneous radiological responses (HRRs) among tumor lesions are usually observed following chemotherapy or radiation treatment in cancer patients. When HRR is observed after chemotherapy or radiation treatment, a change in anticancer treatment is recommended due to the clinically high suspicion of resistance in the majority of cases. The present study reports the case report of a patient with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, diagnosed by bronchoscopy, who received concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Upon response evaluation, the majority of lesions irradiated had nearly completely disappeared following treatment, but one lesion had apparently increased in size. For histological confirmation, a percutaneous needle biopsy for the lesion was performed, however, non-specific necrosis was found and the results were inconclusive for the differentiation of other causes from tumor necrosis. Several acid-fast bacilli were identified on Ziehl-Neelsen staining for the differential diagnosis. This case suggests that a non-tumor diagnosis should be considered when HRR presents after treatment that is expected to result in a higher response rate, particularly in tuberculosis endemic areas.
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.