ReviewDer Pathologe2016
[Grading of lung cancer].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Histology, cytology and molecular diagnostics of lung cancer].Der Pathologe · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In comparison with other tumor entities there is no common generally accepted grading system for lung cancer with clearly defined criteria and clinical relevance. In the recent fourth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification from 2015 of tumors of the lungs, pleura, thymus and heart, there is no generally applicable grading for pulmonary adenocarcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas or rarer forms of carcinoma. Since the new IASLC/ATS/ERS classification of adenocarcinomas published in 2011, 5 different subtypes with significantly different prognosis are proposed. This results in an architectural (histologic) grading, which is usually applied to resection specimens. For squamous cell carcinoma the number of different histological subtypes in the new WHO classification was reduced compared to earlier versions but without a common grading system. In recent publications nesting and budding were proposed as the main (histologic) criteria for a grading of squamous cell carcinomas. The grading of neuroendocrine tumors (NET) of the lungs in comparison with NET in other organs is presented in a separate article in this issue. Certain rare tumor types are high grade per definition: small cell, large cell and pleomorphic carcinomas, carcinosarcomas and pulmonary blastomas. In the future it is to be expected that these developments will be further refined, e. g. by adding further subtypes for adenocarcinomas and cytologic and/or nuclear criteria for adenocarcinoma and/or squamous cell carcinomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27356985What 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.