ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Differences in tumor angiogenesis and related factors between lung adenocarcinomas manifesting as pure ground glass opacity and solid nodules.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. 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.
- Network pharmacology and UHPLC-HRMS reveal the mechanism of QSFZYL and BMSCs overexpressing IFN-γ against lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe prognosis of ground glass opacity featured lung adenocarcinomas (GGO-LUAD) is significantly better than that of solid nodule featured lung adenocarcinomas (SN-LUAD), but the specific reasons behind their indolent tumor behavior are still unclear. The purpose of this study is to investigate their differences in intratumoral microvessels, related angiogenic factors and important stromal cells.
methodsThirty patients (15 paired patients only with GGO or SN) diagnosed with pathological stage 0-I lung adenocarcinoma who underwent surgical treatment were included into this study. Immunohistochemistry was performed to stain the blood vessel markers (CD31, CD34 and CD105), LYVE-1, the cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) markers (α-SMA and S100A4), TGF-β and HIF-1α from 30 patients tissue sections. At the same time, Ki67 Labeling Index (LI) extracted from pathological report of all patients was also analyzed.
resultsGGO-LUAD is more abundant than SN-LUAD in lymphatic vessel density (LVD), but similar in total microvessel density (CD31 + MVD). However, GGO-LUAD is significantly lower than SN-LUAD in CD34 + MVD and CD105 + MVD. In terms of TGF-β, HIF-1α expression and Ki67 LI level, GGO-LUAD was also significantly weaker than SN-LUAD. Moreover, the distribution of CAFs in GGO-LUAD is less than that in SN-LUAD. Regardless of the pathological type (adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) or invasive lung adenocarcinoma (IAC)), there is no difference in any of the above indicators in GGO-LUAD.
conclusionsOur finding displays that GGO-LUAD was significantly lower than SN-LUAD in CD34 + MVD and CD105 + MVD reflecting tumor angiogenesis, and the distribution of CAFs and factors related to tumor angiogenesis were also significantly lower in GGO-LUAD, which may indicate that the weak ability of angiogenesis might be the reason for the good prognosis of GGO-LUAD.
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.