ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
The difference of auxiliary examination parameters between margin recurrence and granuloma on enhanced computed tomography after sublobar resection.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Imaging examinations following sublobar resection of lung cancer often find thickened neoplasms around the resection margin. Identifying whether the neoplasms are postoperative recurrence or margin granulomas is vitally important. However, the identification mainly depends on the empirical judgment of the imaging department or clinicians in each clinical center at present, and there are few relevant studies, so it is hard to formulate a relatively unified standard. Therefore, we collected data from patients with thickened neoplasms around the resection margin after sublobar resection and sought to discover how to differentiate granulomas from tumor recurrence. Methods: We examined the clinical records of 15 patients with neoplasms around the margins which identified as malignant in auxiliary examination reports, and received second surgery after first sublobar resection. We collected their postoperative pathology and auxiliary examination parameters. The univariate predictors helpful in distinguishing between recurrence and granuloma were analyzed as a diagnostic test. Results: Of the 15 patients with neoplasms around the resection margin, six were diagnosed with benign granulomas, and nine were diagnosed with primary lung cancer recurrence. The results revealed that age, gender, specific surgical method, maximum standardized fluorodeoxyglucose uptake value (SUVmax), and follow-up time were not significantly different, but there were significant differences in enhanced computed tomography (CT) values in several analyses, which calculated by the hospital imaging system. The maximum CT values of the tumor recurrence and granuloma were 104.9±8.051 and 130.3±7.017 (P=0.045), the minimum CT values (15.67±5.113 Conclusions: Differentiating between tumor recurrence and granulomas after sublobar resection remains difficult. However, examining the differences in enhanced CT allows the clinician to make an informed diagnosis that aids further investigation and treatment.
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.