ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2022
Consistency and prognostic value of preoperative staging and postoperative pathological staging using
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Head-to-head comparison ofDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic potential of [Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of Deep-Learning-Based Respiratory Motion Correction on [Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence as a Diagnostic Tool in Preoperative Surgical Planning for Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of recurrence risk for patients with stage I invasive lung adenocarcinoma manifesting as solid nodules based onEJNMMI research · 2023Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn recent years, positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) has been clinically used as a method to diagnose non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the concordance of staging and prognostic ability of NSCLC patients using thin-slice computed tomography (CT) and
methodsThis retrospective study was performed on consecutive NSCLC patients who underwent both diagnostic CT and
resultsA total of 82 subjects were included; PET/MRI staging was more consistent (59 of 82) with pathological staging than with CT staging. There was a total of 21 cases of CT and 11 cases of PET/MRI that were judged as cStage I, but were actually pStage II or pStage III. CT tended to judge pN1 or pN2 as cN0 compared to PET/MRI. There was a significant difference between NSCLC patients with Stage I and Stage II or higher by PET/MRI staging as well as prognosis prediction of DFS by pathological staging (P < 0.001). In univariate analysis, PET/MRI, CT, and pathological staging (Stage I or lower vs. Stage II or higher) all showed significant differences as prognostic factors of recurrence or metastases. In multivariate analysis, pathological staging was the only independent factor for recurrence (P = 0.009), and preoperative PET/MRI staging was a predictor of patient survival (P = 0.013).
conclusionsIn NSCLC, pathologic staging was better at predicting recurrence, and preoperative PET/MRI staging was better at predicting survival. Preoperative staging by PET/MRI was superior to CT in diagnosing hilar and mediastinal lymph-node metastases, which contributed to the high concordance with pathologic staging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36264439What 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.