ArticlePeerJ2024
Using molecular characteristics to distinguish multiple primary lung cancers and intrapulmonary metastases.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in Multiple Primary Lung Cancer with 215 Cases.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Metachronous triple primary malignancies: a case report of NGS-guided multidisciplinary management and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Multiple lung cancers may present as multiple primary lung cancers (MPLC) or intrapulmonary metastasis (IPM) with variations in clinical stage, treatment, and prognosis. However, the existing differentiation criteria based on histology do not fully meet the clinical needs. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) may play an important role in assisting the identification of different pathologies. Here, we extended the relevant data by combining histology and NGS to develop detailed identification criteria for MPLC and IPM. Materials and Methods: Patients with lung cancer (each patient had ≥2 tumors) were enrolled in the training ( Results: The analysis of the training cohort indicated that patients identified with MPLC had no (or <2) trunk or shared mutations. However, 98.02% of mutations were branch mutations, and 69.23% of MPLC had no common mutations. In contrast, a higher percentage of trunk (33.08%) or shared (9.02%) mutations were identified in IPM, suggesting significant differences among mutated components. Subsequently, eight MPLC and five IPM cases were identified in the validation cohort, aligning with the independent imaging and pathologic distinction. Overall, the percentage of trunk and shared mutations was higher in patients with IPM than in patients with MPLC. Based on these results and the establishment of new determination criteria for MPLC and IPM, we emphasize that the type and number of shared variants based on histologic consistency assist in identification. Conclusion: Determining genetic alterations may be an effective method for differentiating MPLC and IPM, and NGS can be used as a valuable assisting tool.
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.