ArticleTranslational cancer research2019
Clinic-pathologic features and gene fusion pattern of ALK and ROS1 in non-small cell lung cancer show association with household coal combustion.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [China Wumeng Mountain Lung Cancer: Evidence Chain, Clinical and Molecular Characteristics of Regional Lung Cancer Related to Coal Pollution in the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes ofEcancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Analysis of CD74 Occurrence in Oncogenic Fusion Proteins.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Genetic differences between smokers and never-smokers with lung cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Clinical characteristics of patients withTranslational cancer research · 2020Article
- Lung cancer A549 cells suppressed with overexpressed HNF1B or PCDHA13 inhibited PI3K/AKT phosphorylation.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer induced by burning coal can be etiologically and clinically different from lung cancer caused by smoking. Despite previous work, the gene fusion patterns in lung cancer patients affected by household coal combustion still deserve further study.
methodsNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients exposed to household coal use (HCU) were recruited from rural areas in China's Yunnan Province, certain areas in this region had notably high lung cancer rate nationwide. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was used for detection of ALK, ROS1, RET and NTRK1 rearrangements. Eighteen studies on ALK fusions were summarized and compared with present work.
resultsAmong the 205 patients, there were 112 (54.6%) coal users and 96 (46.8%) smokers, union set had 145 (70.7%) subjects, in which 63 (30.7%) were double-positive for HCU and smoking. HCU patients featured with younger age and advanced stage. Union set patients covered larger age span (range, 40-82 years old), showed clear early-onset, and made the majority of stage IIIA-IV cases. Double-positive individuals were mainly in later stage, but with wider age span (range, 38-75 years old). In addition, 18 patients (8.8%) had EML4-ALK rearrangement, with apparently higher-than-average variant 3 ratio (77.8%
conclusionsPresent study found clinic-pathologic features and gene fusion patterns in NSCLC showed association with household coal combustion. Our findings may help evaluate the impact of coal use on the pathogenesis of lung cancer, and also highlight the significance of integrating different exposure histories into clinical and theoretical research.
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.