Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35498382›Full record

ReviewJTO clinical and research reports2022

Assessing Pathologic Response in Resected Lung Cancers: Current Standards, Proposal for a Novel Pathologic Response Calculator Tool, and Challenges in Practice.

Anjali Saqi, Kevin O Leslie, Andre L Moreira, Sylvie Lantuejoul, Catherine Ann Shu, Naiyer A Rizvi, Joshua R Sonett, Kosei Tajima, Shawn W Sun, Barbara J Gitlitz and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JTO clinical and research reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Updated pan-tumor guidelines for neoadjuvant scoring of pathologic response: a joint SITC and INMC effort.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Anjali SaqiDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Kevin O LeslieDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Andre L MoreiraDepartment of Pathology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Sylvie LantuejoulDepartment of BioPathology, Léon Bérard Center, Lyon, France.
Catherine Ann ShuDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Naiyer A RizviHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Joshua R SonettDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Kosei TajimaBiometrics Department, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
Shawn W SunProduct Development Clinical Oncology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, California.
Barbara J GitlitzProduct Development Clinical Oncology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, California.
Thomas V ColbyDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment for NSCLC can be pathologically assessed in resected tissue. Major pathologic response (MPR) and pathologic complete response (pCR), defined as less than or equal to 10% and 0% viable tumor cells, respectively, are increasingly being used in NSCLC clinical trials to establish them as surrogate end points for efficacy to shorten time to outcome. Nevertheless, sampling and MPR calculation methods vary between studies. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer recently published detailed recommendations for pathologic assessment of NSCLC after neoadjuvant treatment, with methodology being critical. To increase methodological rigor further, we developed a novel MPR calculator tool (MPRCT) for standardized, comprehensive collection of percentages of viable tumor, necrosis, and stroma in the tumor bed. In addition, tumor width and length in the tumor bed are measured and unweighted and weighted MPR averages are calculated, the latter to account for the varying proportions of tumor beds on slides. We propose sampling the entire visible tumor bed for tumors having pCR regardless of size, 100% of tumors less than or equal to 3 cm in diameter, and at least 50% of tumors more than 3 cm. We describe the uses of this tool, including potential formal analyses of MPRCT data to determine the optimum sampling strategy that balances sensitivity against excessive use of resources. Solutions to challenging scenarios in pathologic assessment are proposed. This MPRCT will facilitate standardized, systematic, comprehensive collection of pathologic response data with a standardized methodology to validate studies designed to establish MPR and pCR as surrogate end points of neoadjuvant treatment efficacy.

Indexed as

Early-stage lung cancerMPR assessmentNeoadjuvant therapyNSCLCpCR

Identifiers

PMID35498382
PMCPMC9044000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.