ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
The
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Serum Krebs von den Lungen-6 before treatment predicts the prognosis of lung cancer in Asian populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Is Immunotherapy a Contraindication for Treating Lung Cancer Patients with Interstitial Lung Diseases? A Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Fatal early-onset checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis in a patient with advanced squamous-cell lung cancer with underlying pulmonary fibrosis: a case report and review of the literature.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Radiation-triggered acute exacerbation of progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases: 'Are we advancing the frontier or crossing a dangerous line?'Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) are about five times more likely to develop lung cancer than those without ILD. The presence of ILD in lung cancer patients complicates diagnosis and management, resulting in lower survival rates. Diagnostic and treatment procedures needed for cancer can increase the risk of acute exacerbation (AE), one of the most severe complications for these patients. Bronchoscopic techniques are generally considered safe, but they can trigger AE-ILD, particularly after cryoprobe biopsies. Surgical procedures for lung cancer, including lung biopsies and resections, carry an elevated risk of AE-ILD. Postoperative complications and mortality rates highlight the importance of meticulous surgical planning and postoperative care. Furthermore, cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, are all burdened by a risk of AE-ILD occurrence. Radiotherapy is important for managing both early-stage and advanced lung cancer, but it also poses risks. Stereotactic body radiation and particle beam therapies have varying degrees of safety, with the latter potentially offering a lower risk of AE. Percutaneous ablation techniques can help patients who are not eligible for surgery. However, these procedures may complicate ILD, and their associated risks still need to be fully understood, necessitating further research for improved safety. Overall, while advancements in lung cancer treatment have improved outcomes for many patients, the complexity of managing patients with concomitant ILD needs careful consideration and multidisciplinary assessment. This review provides a detailed evaluation of these risks, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment approaches and monitoring to improve patient outcomes in this challenging population.
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.