ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020
Establishment of Criteria for Molecular Differential Diagnosis of MPLC and IPM.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Next-Generation Sequencing vs. Clinical-Pathological Assessment in Diagnosis of Multiple Lung Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Thoracic cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Novel causes and assessments of intrapulmonary metastasis.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Article
- CXCL1 and CXCL8: Reliable and feasible biomarkers differentiating intrapulmonary metastasis from multiple primary neoplasms in non-small cell lung cancers.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Article
- Genomic Staging of Multifocal Lung Squamous Cell Carcinomas Is Independent of the Comprehensive Morphologic Assessment.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2024Article
- Using molecular characteristics to distinguish multiple primary lung cancers and intrapulmonary metastases.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Classification of multiple primary lung cancer in patients with multifocal lung cancer: assessment of a machine learning approach using multidimensional genomic data.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Diagnosis and management of multiple primary lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- A molecular approach integrating genomic and DNA methylation profiling for tissue of origin identification in lung-specific cancer of unknown primary.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Mutational status of main driver genes influences the prognosis of stage I-III lung adenocarcinoma patients underwent radical surgery.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Lung Cancer: Potential and Challenges.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2024-03-19Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Error in Methods · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsDifferential diagnosis of multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC) and intrapulmonary metastasis (IPM) is one difficulty in lung cancer diagnosis, and crucial for establishment of treatment strategies and prognosis prediction. This study aims to establish the criteria for molecular differential diagnosis of synchronous MPLC and IPM by the next-generation sequencing (NGS) method.
methodsTraining cohort included 30 synchronous MPLC (67 samples) patients and 5 synchronous IPM (13 samples) patients with adenocarcinoma. Criteria of MPLC/IPM differential diagnosis were established by results from a NGS-based 605-gene panel test. Subsequently, 16 patients (36 samples) were recruited as the validation cohort to verify the criteria.
resultsIPM lesions showed a high degree of mutation overlap with an average concordance rate of 60.2% (range: 15.8%-91.7%). IPM lesions had at least three common alterations, including both high-frequency driver gene alterations and low-frequency gene alterations. In contrast, the average concordance rate of MPLC was 11.0% (range: 0.0%-100.0%), among which 66.7% (20/30) of patients had no common alterations (concordance rate: 0%). In the remaining 10 patients, 9 had only one overlapping alteration while 1 had two overlapping alterations, in which 6 patients had EGFR L858R overlapping mutation. Alterations were classified into trunk, shared, and branch subtypes. Branch alterations accounted for 94.4% of mutations in MPLC, while accounted for only 45.0% in IMP. In contrast, the ratio of trunk (38.3%) and shared (16.7%) alterations in IPM was significantly higher. The criteria for differentiating MPLC from IPM using 605-gene panel was established: 1) MPLC can be interpreted if no overlapping alterations is found; 2) MPLC is recommended if one overlapping high-frequency drive gene alteration and/or one overlapping low-frequency gene alteration are/is found; 3) IPM can be interpreted if more than three common alterations are found. Subsequently, 16 patients were recruited as the validation cohort in the single-blind manner to verify the criteria, and 14 MPLC and 2 IPM were identified, which was 100% consistent with the results from independent imaging and pathological diagnosis.
conclusionsNGS detection can distinguish synchronous MPLC from IPM and is a useful tool to assist differential diagnosis.
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.