ReviewIndian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2023
Current investigative modalities for detecting and staging lung cancers: a comprehensive summary.
Review in Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2023. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- [Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic significance of the MELK/TMPO-AS1/hsa-let-7b-5p network in lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Development of a CT image-based virtual atelectasis simulation model and noninvasive lung nodule localization system.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Data-driven classification and explainable-AI in the field of lung imaging.Frontiers in big data · 2024Review
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 at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review compares the advantages and drawbacks of imaging and other investigation modalities which currently assist with lung cancer diagnosis and staging, as well as those which are not routinely indicated for this. We examine plain film radiography, computed tomography (CT) (alone, as well as in conjunction with positron emission tomography (PET)), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, and newer techniques such as image-guided bronchoscopy (IGB) and robotic bronchoscopy (RB). While a chest X-ray is the first-line imaging investigation in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of lung cancer, it has a high positive predictive value (PPV) even after negative X-ray findings, which calls into question its value as part of a potential national screening programme. CT lowers the mortality for high-risk patients when compared to X-ray and certain scoring systems, such as the Brock model can guide the need for further imaging, like PET-CT, which has high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing solitary pulmonary nodules as malignant, as well as for assessing small cell lung cancer spread. In practice, PET-CT is offered to everyone whose lung cancer is to be treated with a curative intent. In contrast, MRI is only recommended for isolated distant metastases. Similarly, ultrasound imaging is not used for diagnosis of lung cancer but can be useful when there is suspicion of intrathoracic lymph node involvement. Ultrasound imaging in the form of endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS) is often used to aid tissue sampling, yet the diagnostic value of this technique varies widely between studies. RB is another novel technique that offers an alternative way to biopsy lesions, but further research on it is necessary. Lastly, thoracic surgical biopsies, particularly minimally invasive video-assisted techniques, have been used increasingly to aid in diagnosis and staging.
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.