ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2024
Evaluation of sex inequity in lung-cancer-specific survival.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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.
- Sex-based inequities in non-small cell lung cancer: gaps and opportunities across the care pathway.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Tumor stage, squamous histology and male sex predict positive resection margins in non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing anatomical resection-a retrospective study from a high-volume thoracic surgery unit.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Association Between Obesity and Sex-Related Survival Difference in Lung Cancer.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based model identifies a novel cuproptosis-related mitochondrial gene signature with a key role in the prognosis and treatment of lung adenocarcinoma.Oncology letters · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether sex is an independent prognostic factor in lung cancer survival is the subject of ongoing debate. Both large national registries and single hospital studies have shown conflicting findings. In this study, we explore the impact of sex on lung-cancer-specific survival in an unselected population that is well-characterized with respect to stage and other covariates. MATERIAL AND
methodsAll patients diagnosed with lung cancer at a single hospital serving a whole and defined region in Southern Norway during the 10 years 2007-2016 were included. Follow-up data were available for at least 56 months for all patients. Analyses were adjusted for stage, treatment, performance status, smoking, age, histology, epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase/immunotherapy treatment and period. Differences in lung-cancer-specific survival by sex were explored using restricted mean survival times (RMST).
resultsOf the 1,261 patients diagnosed with lung cancer, 596 (47%) were females and 665 (53%) males, with mean ages of 68.5 and 69.5 years, respectively. The observed 5-year lung-cancer-specific survival rate was 27.4% (95% CI 23.7, 31.2) in females and 21.4% (95% CI 18.2, 24.8) in males. However, after adjustment for covariates, no significant differences by sex were observed. The 5-year RMST was 0.9 months shorter (95% CI -2.1, 0.31, p = 0.26) in males compared to females.
interpretationIn this cohort, sex was not associated with a difference in lung-cancer-specific survival after adjusting for clinical and biological factors. Imbalance in stage at diagnosis was the main contributor to the observed difference in lung-cancer-specific survival by sex.
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.