ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2020
How should molecular findings be integrated in the classification for lung cancer?
Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting Lung Cancer Metabolism: Therapeutic Opportunities and Challenges.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Thyroglobulin expression, Ki-67 index, and lymph node ratio in the prognostic assessment of papillary thyroid cancer.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Current Landscape of Therapeutic Resistance in Lung Cancer and Promising Strategies to Overcome Resistance.Cancers · 2022Review
- A narrative review of artificial intelligence-assisted histopathologic diagnosis and decision-making for non-small cell lung cancer: achievements and limitations.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Review
- Propofol suppresses lung cancer tumorigenesis by modulating the circ-ERBB2/miR-7-5p/FOXM1 axis.Thoracic cancer · 2021Article
- Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Microbiota: Which Impact on Lung Cancer?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
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
The use of molecular diagnostics in the diagnosis and management of patients with advanced lung cancer has become widespread. Although molecular classification has increasingly been incorporated in the pathologic classification of certain types of human tumors (particularly within the hematologic, glial, and bone/soft tissue malignancies), genetic findings have not been formally incorporated into the pathologic classification of lung cancer, which presently relies solely on the assessment of histologic and immunophenotypic characteristics. Whether molecular classification should be adopted in lung cancer would depend on the diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive impacts of such classification-and whether these impacts confer significant values additive to those derived from the routine histologic and immunophenotypic assessment. We provide a brief overview on the genetics of lung cancer, including adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and neuroendocrine tumors (small cell carcinoma, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, and carcinoid tumors). We consider the values of molecular information with some examples, in terms of the current diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive impacts. Finally, we discuss the conceptual and technical challenges of adopting a molecular classification for lung cancer in clinical management for patients. While there are conceptual and technical hurdles to tackle in implementing molecular classification in the pathologic classification of lung cancer, such integrated histologic-molecular diagnosis may allow one to personalize and optimize therapy for patients with advanced lung cancer.
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.