ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2024
Prognostic value of ground-glass opacity on computed tomography for patients with pathological stage IA3 lung adenocarcinoma: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ground-glass opacity (GGO) on computed tomography (CT) has been suggested as a potential prognostic factor in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), but its significance in patients with pathological stage IA3 LUAD, particularly in relation to micropapillary (MIP) status, remains unclear. This study addresses the clinical need to stratify patients based on GGO and MIP status to optimize prognosis prediction and follow-up strategies. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted on 411 patients with pathological stage IA3 LUAD, enrolled between July 2012 and July 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence of GGO. The association of GGO with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients with different MIP status was assessed, stratified by MIP status (MIP ≥5% was classified as positive, and MIP <5% as negative). A life-table analysis was used to calculate dynamic recurrence curves of subgroups formed by GGO and MIP and to establish a personalized follow-up strategy. Results: The analysis indicated that GGO was associated with prolonged RFS (P<0.001) and CSS (P=0.006) in MIP-negative patients but not for MIP-positive patients. Time-dependent Cox multivariate analysis further showed that GGO was a favorable prognostic factor for RFS (P=0.03) and CSS (P=0.04) even at 2 years postoperatively. Based on GGO components and MIP status, patients were categorized into the four following subgroups: MIP(+)-GGO(+), MIP(+)-GGO(-), MIP(-)-GGO(+), and MIP(-)-GGO(-); the recommended number of follow-up visits for these four subgroups within 5 years were 3, 9, 3, and 11, respectively. Conclusions: The GGO component demonstrated a beneficial prognostic effect primarily in MIP-negative patients with pathological stage IA3 LUAD, sustained for up to 2 years. The variation in recurrence risk across subgroups underscores the importance of personalized follow-up strategies based on GGO and MIP status to optimize patient monitoring and care.
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.