ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Classification of multiple primary lung cancer in patients with multifocal lung cancer: assessment of a machine learning approach using multidimensional genomic data.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification ofOncology research · 2026Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models based on molecular features for estimating the probability of multiple primary lung carcinoma versus intrapulmonary metastasis in patients presenting multiple non-small cell lung cancers.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Rapid detection of liver metastasis risk in colorectal cancer patients through blood test indicators.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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC) is an increasingly well-known clinical phenomenon. However, its molecular characterizations are poorly understood, and still lacks of effective method to distinguish it from intrapulmonary metastasis (IM). Herein, we propose an identification model based on molecular multidimensional analysis in order to accurately optimize treatment. Methods: A total of 112 Chinese lung cancers harboring at least two tumors (n = 270) were enrolled. We retrospectively selected 74 patients with 121 tumor pairs and randomly divided the tumor pairs into a training cohort and a test cohort in a 7:3 ratio. A novel model was established in training cohort, optimized for MPLC identification using comprehensive genomic profiling analyzed by a broad panel with 808 cancer-related genes, and evaluated in the test cohort and a prospective validation cohort of 38 patients with 112 tumors. Results: We found differences in molecular characterizations between the two diseases and rigorously selected the characterizations to build an identification model. We evaluated the performance of the classifier using the test cohort data and observed an 89.5% percent agreement (PA) for MPLC and a 100.0% percent agreement for IM. The model showed an excellent area under the curve (AUC) of 0.947 and a 91.3% overall accuracy. Similarly, the assay achieved a considerable performance in the independent validation set with an AUC of 0.938 and an MPLC predictive value of 100%. More importantly, the MPLC predictive value of the classification achieved 100% in both the test set and validation cohort. Compared to our previous mutation-based method, the classifier showed better κ consistencies with clinical classification among all 112 patients (0.84 Conclusion: These data provide novel evidence of MPLC-specific genomic characteristics and demonstrate that our one-step molecular classifier can accurately classify multifocal lung tumors as MPLC or IM, which suggested that broad panel NGS may be a useful tool for assisting with differential diagnoses.
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.