ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2023
The presence of circulating genetically abnormal cells in blood predicts risk of lung cancer in individuals with indeterminate pulmonary nodules.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers for Lung Nodule Risk Stratification: Are We There Yet?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advances in modelling the risk of benign and malignant lung nodules.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Precision patient selection for improved detection of circulating genetically abnormal cells in pulmonary nodules.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Analytical validation of the LungLB test: a 4-color fluorescence in-situ hybridization assay for the evaluation of indeterminate pulmonary nodules.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- The causal relationship between thyroid function, autoimune thyroid dysfunction and lung cancer: a mendelian randomization study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 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
16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeComputed tomography is the standard method by which pulmonary nodules are detected. Greater than 40% of pulmonary biopsies are not lung cancer and therefore not necessary, suggesting that improved diagnostic tools are needed. The LungLB™ blood test was developed to aid the clinical assessment of indeterminate nodules suspicious for lung cancer. LungLB™ identifies circulating genetically abnormal cells (CGACs) that are present early in lung cancer pathogenesis.
methodsLungLB™ is a 4-color fluorescence in-situ hybridization assay for detecting CGACs from peripheral blood. A prospective correlational study was performed on 151 participants scheduled for a pulmonary nodule biopsy. Mann-Whitney, Fisher's Exact and Chi-Square tests were used to assess participant demographics and correlation of LungLB™ with biopsy results, and sensitivity and specificity were also evaluated.
resultsParticipants from Mount Sinai Hospital (n = 83) and MD Anderson (n = 68), scheduled for a pulmonary biopsy were enrolled to have a LungLB™ test. Additional clinical variables including smoking history, previous cancer, lesion size, and nodule appearance were also collected. LungLB™ achieved 77% sensitivity and 72% specificity with an AUC of 0.78 for predicting lung cancer in the associated needle biopsy. Multivariate analysis found that clinical and radiological factors commonly used in malignancy prediction models did not impact the test performance. High test performance was observed across all participant characteristics, including clinical categories where other tests perform poorly (Mayo Clinic Model, AUC = 0.52).
conclusionEarly clinical performance of the LungLB™ test supports a role in the discrimination of benign from malignant pulmonary nodules. Extended studies are underway.
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.