Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34589986›Full record

ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2021

Utility of Newly Proposed Grading System From International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer for Invasive Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Atsushi Kagimoto, Yasuhiro Tsutani, Takahiro Kambara, Yoshinori Handa, Takashi Kumada, Takahiro Mimae, Kei Kushitani, Yoshihiro Miyata, Yukio Takeshima, Morihito Okada

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Novel Insights Into the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Grading System for Lung Adenocarcinoma.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Atsushi KagimotoDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Yasuhiro TsutaniDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Takahiro KambaraDepartment of Pathology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Yoshinori HandaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Takashi KumadaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Takahiro MimaeDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Kei KushitaniDepartment of Pathology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Yoshihiro MiyataDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Yukio TakeshimaDepartment of Pathology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.
Morihito OkadaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer proposed a new grading criteria for invasive adenocarcinoma. However, its utility has not been validated.

methodsPatients who underwent complete resection of lung adenocarcinoma were included in this study. Then, they were divided into the following three groups on the basis of the criteria recently proposed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer: grade 1, lepidic predominant tumor, with less than 20% of high-grade patterns; grade 2, acinar or papillary predominant tumor, with less than 20% of high-grade patterns; and grade 3, any tumor with greater than or equal to 20% of high-grade patterns.

resultsRecurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly different among the proposed grades (

conclusionsAlthough the proposed grading system well stratified RFS in patients with pathologic stage 0 or I lung adenocarcinoma, there is room for improvement.

Indexed as

GradeLung adenocarcinomaLung cancerPathological grade

Identifiers

PMID34589986
PMCPMC8474240

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.