ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
The value of combined PET/MRI, CT and clinical metabolic parameters in differentiating lung adenocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma.
Article 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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- PET radiomics for histologic subtype classification of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Radiomics in distinguishing between lung adenocarcinoma and lung squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Current status and prospect of PET-related imaging radiomics in lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to study the diagnostic efficacy of positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) and clinical metabolic parameters in predicting the histological classification of lung adenocarcinoma (ADC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Methods: PET/MRI, CT and clinical metabolic data of 80 patients with lung ADC or SCC were retrospectively collected. According to the pathological results from surgery or fiberscopy, the patients were diagnosed with lung ADC (47 cases) or SCC (33 cases). All 80 patients were divided into a training group (64 cases), an internal testing group (8 cases) and an external testing group (8 cases) in the ratio of 8:1:1. Nine models were constructed by integrating features from different modalities. The Gaussian classifier was used to differentiate ADC and SCC. The prediction ability was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic curve. The area under the curve (AUC) of the models was compared using Delong's test. Based on the best composite model, a nomogram was established and evaluated with a calibration curve, decision curve and clinical impact curve. Results: The composite model (PET/MRI + CT + Clinical) owned the highest AUC values in the training, internal testing and external testing sets, respectively. In the training set, significant differences in the AUC were found between the composite model and other models except for the PET/MRI + CT model. The calibration curves showed good consistency between the predicted output and actual disease. The decision curve analysis and clinical impact curves demonstrated that the composite model increased the clinical net benefit for predicting lung cancer subtypes. Conclusion: The composite prediction model of PET/MRI + CT + Clinical better distinguished ADC from SCC pathological subtypes preoperatively and achieved clinical benefits, thus providing an accurate clinical diagnosis.
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.