ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Prognostic performance of the N category in the 9th edition of lung cancer staging.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival impact of pN2a and pN2b nodal status in stage IIB-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer under the 9Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2026Article
- Differences Between the 8th and 9th Editions of the TNM Staging System in Predicting Mortality in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Staged with EBUS.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the prognostic performance of the N category of lung cancer in the 9th edition with previous editions (7th edition and 8th edition's proposal).
methodsPatients who underwent lobectomy or pneumonectomy for lung cancer from January 2015 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and pathologic N categories were reclassified according to the 9th edition (N0, N1, N2a, and N2b), the 8th edition's proposal (N0, N1a, N1b, N2a1, N2a2, and N2b), and the 7th edition (N0, N1, and N2). Concordance index (C-index) and calibration were assessed for each edition.
resultsA total of 3864 patients were included (962 pN positive and 513 cN positive). The 9th edition demonstrated clear hazard stratification between neighboring pN categories after multivariable adjustment, whereas multiple overlaps were observed in the 8th edition's proposal. It had superior discrimination performance compared with the 7th edition in pathologic staging (all p < 0.05). Compared with the 8th edition's proposal, the 9th edition showed comparable performance in pN2 and overall patients (C-index, 0.560 vs 0.569 [p = 0.163]; 0.666 vs 0.668 [p = 0.396]), In clinical staging, there was no difference in discrimination across 7th to 9th editions (all p > 0.05). N1 dichotomization in the 8th edition's proposal showed discrimination ability (C-index, 0.539 [95% confidence interval: 0.502-0.576]) only in pathologic staging. The calibration was acceptable across the clinical 7th to 9th editions for 5-year survival.
conclusionThe revision of the N category in the 9th edition appears reasonable, offering enhanced prognostic discrimination compared with the 7th edition and comparability to the 8th edition's proposal. KEY POINTS: Question Does the revised N category in the 9th edition offer added value in discrimination over previous editions? Findings The discrimination performance of the 9th edition is comparable to that of the 8th edition's proposal, demonstrating a distinct hazard stratification between neighboring pN categories. Clinical relevance The revision of the N category in the 9th edition appears reasonable; however, survival heterogeneity within the pathologic N1 category needs to be considered in future updates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39704801What 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.