SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Differential Diagnostic Value of Histology in MPLC and IPM: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilizing clinical features, genetic mutations, and a 14-gene molecular assay for optimizing the management of multiple primary lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Incidence of Second Primaries and Recurrent Disease in Early-Stage Lung Cancer: What Can We Expect in a Nodule-Care Center Cohort?Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Robotic-assisted and electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy for multi-focal lung cancers: a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Review
- Optimizing the NGS-based discrimination of multiple lung cancers from the perspective of evolution.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Using molecular characteristics to distinguish multiple primary lung cancers and intrapulmonary metastases.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Multiple primary lung cancer: Updates of clinical management and genomic features.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- A rare case report: co-occurrence of two types of lung cancer with hamartoma and pulmonary tuberculosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The paramount issue regarding multiple lung cancer (MLC) is whether it represents multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC) or intrapulmonary metastasis (IPM), as this directly affects both accurate staging and subsequent clinical management. As a classic method, histology has been widely utilized in clinical practice. However, studies examining the clinical value of histology in MLC have yielded inconsistent results; thus, this remains to be evaluated. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the differential diagnostic value of histology in MPLC and IPM and to provide evidence-based medicine for clinical work. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to collect relevant literature according to PRISMA, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were set up to screen and assess the literature. The data required for reconstructing a 2 × 2 contingency table were extracted directly or calculated indirectly from the included studies, and statistical analysis was carried out by using Stata 15, Meta-DiSc 1.4, and Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: A total of 34 studies including 1,075 pairs of tumors were included in this meta-analysis. Among these studies, 11 were about the M-M standard and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.84) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.38-0.55), respectively; 20 studies were about CHA and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72-0.80) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.79), respectively; and 3 studies were about the "CHA & Lepidic" criteria and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.85-0.99) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.21-0.73), respectively. The combined pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and the area under the SROC curve of the 34 studies were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.86), 0.64 (95% CI: 0.51-0.76), 2.25 (95% CI: 1.59-3.17), 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23-0.43), 7.22 (95% CI: 4.06-12.81), and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84), respectively. Conclusion: The current evidence indicated that histology had a moderate differential diagnostic value between MPLC and IPM. Among the three subgroups, the "CHA & Lepidic" criteria showed the highest sensitivity and CHA showed the highest specificity. Further research is necessary to validate these findings and to improve clinical credibility. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022298180.
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.