ArticleBMC cancer2024
Establishment and verification of novel TNM staging system for lung mucinous adenocarcinoma.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung: integrating molecular landscape, imaging phenotypes, and translational therapeutic strategies.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- Article
- Identification of the lymph node metastasis atlas and optimal lymph node dissection strategy in patients with resectable lung invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma: a real-world multicenter study.Military Medical Research · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung adenocarcinoma is a high-mortality rate cancer. Within this category, Lung mucinous adenocarcinoma (LMAC) is a rare and distinct subtype of lung adenocarcinoma necessitating further investigation. The study was launched to compare the difference of survival features between LMAC and lung non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (LNMAC) and to investigate the significance and demand for developing a new staging system tailored to LMAC.
methodsThis retrospective study assessed the suitableness of the current staging system for LMAC. It compared the overall survival (OS) between LMAC and LNMAC from 2004 to 2020 (LNMAC: 160,387; LMAC: 6,341) and instituted a novel classification framework for LMAC based on US population. Verification group consisting of patients from two Chinese medical centers from 2010 to 2018 (n = 392) was set to ascertain the applicability of this novel system. The primary endpoint was OS. To minimize the bias, propensity score match (PSM) was employed. Survival analysis and Log-rank test were executed to explore the survival features of LMAC.
resultsThe results indicated that the existed staging system was not suitable for LMAC. Patients diagnosed with LMAC exhibited a superior OS compared to those with LNMAC in stage IA2 (P < 0.0001), IA3 (P < 0.0001), IB (P = 0.0062), IIA (P = 0.0090), IIB (P = 0.0005). In contrast, a worse OS in stage IVA (P = 0.0103) was found in LMAC patients. The novel classification system proposed for LMAC proved to be highly applicable and demonstrated substantial efficacy, as confirmed by the verification group.
conclusionThe newly established classification system was more effective for LMAC, but it necessitates large-scale verification to confirm its applicability and reliability.
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.