ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Pathological discrepancies in the diagnosis of thymic epithelial tumors: the Tallinn-Lyon experience.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrative Multiomic Classification Reveals Distinct Origins and Evolutionary Trajectories of Thymic Epithelial Tumors.Cancer research · 2026Article
- Factors distinguishing thymomas from thymic squamous cell carcinoma: a proposal for diagnosis emphasizing the immunophenotype.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and prognosis of thymic epithelial tumors: a systematic review.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2025Review
- Article
- Interobserver variation in the classification of thymic lesions including biopsies and resection specimens in an international digital microscopy panel.Histopathology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThymic epithelial tumors are rare thoracic tumors for which pathological diagnosis is challenging due to the definition of multiple subtypes, tumor heterogeneity, and variations in interobserver reproducibility. In this study, we aimed at analyzing the quality of pathological reporting in line with the consistency between initial diagnosis and final diagnosis after expert review through a collaboration between the largest thoracic oncology center in Estonia, and one expert center in France.
methodsHospital electronic database and pathology databases from the Tallinn North Estonia Medical Centre were searched for thymic and mediastinal tumors from 2010 to 2017. Pathology specimens were referred to the Pathology Department of the Lyon University hospital. Overall, 55 tissue specimens from 49 patients were included.
resultsFrom pathology reports, tumor size, diagnosis, and invasion had been mentioned in ≥80% of cases, while resection status and staging were assessed in only 48% and 17% of cases, respectively. The initial diagnosis was consistent with that of the review in 60% of cases. Diagnostic concordance for thymoma subtypes was low (Cohen's kappa 0.34, 95% CI: 0.16-0.52). Overall, a major change in the management of 8 (16%) patients had to be made after pathological review: 3 patients had a normal thymus according to the reference centre, while thymoma B1 or B2 had been diagnosed locally; 5 additional patients had a final diagnosis of non-thymic tumor.
conclusionsImplementing structured pathology reports may help to decrease discrepancies in the diagnosis of thymic epithelial tumors. The development of expert networks is an opportunity to improve diagnosis and patient care, particularly in regard to rare cancers.
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.