ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Clinical and pathologic staging accuracy in patients with synchronous multiple primary lung cancers.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction and validation of a risk prediction model for venous thromboembolism post-VATS in simultaneous multicentric primary lung cancers.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT): Challenging Scenarios and New Frontiers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The use of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy-guided microwave ablation in patients with multiple bilateral pulmonary nodules: a retrospective study of 26 cases.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Primary squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma simultaneously occurring in the same lung lobe: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence of synchronous multiple primary lung cancer (SMPLC) is increasing, occurring in up to 20% of lung cancer patients. Accurately identifying SMPLC can be challenging, and failure to recognize SMPLC results in poor outcomes. We sought to assess the staging accuracy of patients with SMPLC at our tertiary institution. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who were evaluated for lung cancer resection between January 2018 to September 2019. Patients with SMPLC were identified using the modified Martini-Melamed criteria. Preoperative imaging, clinical assessment, and pathologic interpretation were reviewed and compared to the final staging assigned by a multidisciplinary lung cancer tumor board to determine accuracy. Results: Out of 227 patients presenting for lung cancer resection, 47 patients with 119 SMPLC were identified, of which 38 (80.9%) were incorrectly staged by at least one report. Incorrect staging was most common by computed tomography (CT) reports (n=33/47, 70.2%), followed by positron emission tomography-CT (PET-CT) reports (n=28/45, 62.2%), surgeons' clinical assessment (n=10/47, 21.3%), and histopathology reports (n=8/47, 17.0%). CT reports, when incorrect, under-staged 97.0% (n=32) of patients. PET-CT reports, when incorrect, over-staged 25.0% (n=7) of patients by reporting the second primary nodule to be "consistent with metastasis". Histopathology reports, when incorrect, over-staged 87.5% (n=7) of patients despite lack of lymph node involvement. Conclusions: Patients with SMPLC are at risk of receiving incorrect treatment based on radiographic and histopathologic staging reports alone. The observed staging inaccuracies are concerning, necessitating increased awareness among physicians caring for lung cancer patients.
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.