Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31772147›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019

Cavity Formation is a Prognostic Indicator for Pathologic Stage I Invasive Lung Adenocarcinoma of ≥3 cm in Size.

Chunji Chen, Shijie Fu, Qiming Ni, Wang Yiyang, Xufeng Pan, Jiao Jing, Heng Zhao, Wang Rui

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Chunji ChenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Shijie FuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Qiming NiDepartment of Image, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Wang YiyangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Xufeng PanDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Jiao JingDepartment of Image, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Heng ZhaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Wang RuiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (mainland).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND We investigated the correlation between cavity formation, prognosis, and tumor stage for pathologic stage I invasive lung adenocarcinomas (IADCs) ≤3 cm in size. MATERIAL AND METHODS 2106 candidates with pathologic stage I IADC were identified from Shanghai Chest Hospital between 2009 and 2014. There were 227 patients who were diagnosed as having cavity formation and another 1879 patients who were not (the non-cavitary lung cancer group). Kaplan-Meier analysis curves were conducted to compare the overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) between these 2 groups. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to discover the independent risk factors of OS and RFS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was done to determine the cutoff value of cavity size for predicting prognosis. Furthermore, subgroup analysis was stratified by the size of tumor and the 8th classification of T category. RESULTS Compared with non-cavitary lung cancer group, patients with cavity formation were found to have a higher prevalence of male patients (P=0.015), older age patients (P=0.039), larger size tumors (P=0.004), and worse cancer relapse (P<0.001). Survival analysis found that patients with cavitary IADC had significantly shorter RFS than those with non-cavitary IADC (P=0.001). Further, subgroup analysis confirmed a significantly worse RFS in cavitary IADC group both in stage T1a (P=0.002) and T1b (P<0.001), but not for stage T1c (P=0.962) and T2a (P=0.364). Moreover, cavity formation was still less of a significant predictor of RFS in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.810, 95% confidence level [CI] 1.229-2.665, P=0.003). The ROC curve showed that the best cutoff value of maximum diameter of the cavity for judging RFS was 5 mm (sensitivity: 0.500; specificity: 0.783). At the same time, multiple cavities were more likely to lead to recurrence (sensitivity: 0.605; specificity: 0.439). CONCLUSIONS Cavitary adenocarcinoma was a worse prognostic indicator compared with non-cavitary adenocarcinoma, especially for cavity >5 mm and multiple cavities. Thus, for stage T1a and T1b, cavitary and non-cavitary IADC should be considered separately.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdenocarcinoma of LungAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChinaFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID31772147
PMCPMC6898982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.