Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34659805›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2021

Discriminating invasive adenocarcinoma among lung pure ground-glass nodules: a multi-parameter prediction model.

Fuying Hu, Haihua Huang, Yunyan Jiang, Minxiang Feng, Hao Wang, Min Tang, Yi Zhou, Xianhua Tan, Yalan Liu, Chen Xu and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Fuying HuDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The First People's Hospital, Tianmen, China.
Haihua HuangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai General Hospital, Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Yunyan JiangDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, People's Hospital, Yuxi, China.
Minxiang FengDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hao WangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Min TangDepartment of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yi ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xianhua TanDepartment of Radiology, The Fifth Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan, China.
Yalan LiuDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Chen XuDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ning DingDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Chunxue BaiDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jie HuDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Dawei YangDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yong ZhangDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Fudan University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNZhongshan Hospital · CNFifth Hospital In Wuhan · CNShanghai First People's Hospital · CNThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with consistent lung pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs) have a high incidence of lung adenocarcinoma that can be classified as adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), or invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC). Regular follow-up is recommended for AIS and MIA, while surgical resection should be considered for IAC. This study sought to develop a multi-parameter prediction model to increase the diagnostic accuracy in discriminating between IAC and AIS or MIA.

methodsThe training data set comprised consecutive patients with lung pGGNs who underwent resection from January to December 2017 at the Zhongshan Hospital. Of the 370 resected pGGNs, 344 were pathologically confirmed to be AIS, MIA, or IAC and were included in the study. The 26 benign pGGNs were excluded. We compared differences in the clinical features (e.g., age and gender), the content of serum tumor biomarkers, the computed tomography (CT) parameters (e.g., nodule size and the maximal CT value), and the morphologic characteristics of nodules (e.g., lobulation, spiculation, pleura indentation, vacuole sign, and normal vessel penetration or abnormal vessel) between the pathological subtypes of AIS, MIA, and IAC. An abnormal vessel was defined as "vessel curve" or "vessel enlargement". Statistical analyses were performed using the chi-square test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and rank test. The IAC prediction model was constructed via a multivariate logistical regression. Our prediction model for lung pGGNs was further validated in a data set comprising consecutive patients from multiple medical centers in China from July to December 2018. In total, 345 resected pGGNs were pathologically diagnosed as lung adenocarcinoma in the validation data set.

resultsIn the training data set, patients with pGGNs ≥10 mm in size had a high incidence (74.5%) of IAC. The maximal CT value of IAC [-416.1±121.2 Hounsfield unit (HU)] was much higher than that of MIA (-507.7±138.0 HU) and AIS (-602.6±93.3 HU) (P<0.001). IAC was more common in pGGNs that displayed any of the following CT manifestations: lobulation, spiculation, pleura indentation, vacuole sign, and vessel abnormality. The IAC prediction model was constructed using the parameters that were assessed as risk factors (i.e., the nodule size, maximal CT value, and CT signs). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of this model for diagnosing IAC was 0.910, which was higher than that of the AUC for nodule size alone (0.891) or the AUC for the maximal CT value alone (0.807) (P<0.05, respectively). A multicenter validation data set was used to validate the performance of our prediction model in diagnosing IAC, and our model was found to have an AUC of 0.883, which was higher than that of the AUC of 0.827 for the module size alone model or the AUC of 0.791 for the maximal CT value alone model (P<0.05, respectively).

conclusionsOur multi-parameter prediction model was more accurate at diagnosing IAC than models that used only nodule size or the maximal CT value alone. Thus, it is an efficient tool for identifying the IAC of malignant pGGNs and deciding if surgery is needed.

Indexed as

invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC)prediction modelPure ground-glass nodule (pGGN)

Identifiers

PMID34659805
PMCPMC8482342
OpenAlexW3198838189

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.