ArticleThoracic cancer2019
Questionnaire survey on patient awareness of invasive rebiopsy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of Histological Transformation in First-Line Osimertinib Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers: Case Series and Literature Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A Multicenter Study on Unnecessary Rebiopsies in CT-Guided Percutaneous Transthoracic Needle Biopsy of Pulmonary Lesions.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Recommendations for a practical implementation of circulating tumor DNA mutation testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.ESMO open · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment strategies for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) depend on various factors including physical condition, complications, tumor histology, and molecular profiling. Even if initial chemotherapy is efficacious, almost all patients develop treatment resistance. Invasive rebiopsy from sites of recurrence might provide insight into resistance mechanisms and aid in the selection of suitable sequential antitumor drugs. However, invasive rebiopsy might be challenging because of limited tissue availability and patient burden. Therefore, this study aimed to assess awareness of invasive rebiopsy among non-small cell lung cancer patients.
methodsThis prospective questionnaire survey was performed between June 2015 and March 2016 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The survey was carried out at two time points: before starting first-line chemotherapy (cohort 1), and at the time of disease progression after initial chemotherapy, but before second-line chemotherapy (cohort 2).
resultsIn this study, 50 and 30 patients were enrolled in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. In cohort 1, 37 (74%) patients agreed to rebiopsy, if disease progression occurred, whereas 18 (60%) patients in cohort 2 agreed to invasive rebiopsy at disease progression. The primary reasons for rebiopsy rejection were poor physical condition and patient burden related to the initial biopsy. Seven patients answered the survey questions during the treatment course, and the acceptance rate was lower among patients who agreed to rebiopsy at disease progression than before treatment.
conclusionsInvasive rebiopsy can lead to distress in some patients. To improve the consent rate for tissue rebiopsy, treatment strategies including rebiopsy should be discussed with patients during the early treatment phase.
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.