ArticlePloS one2025
CT features and histogram analysis of non-contrast images for differentiating malignant and benign mediastinal lymph nodes in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Tumor Necrosis on Routine Pretreatment CT as a Potential Prognostic Marker in Advanced NSCLC Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Monotherapy: A Two-Center Retrospective Study.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram integrating multi-dimensional clinical factors for predicting lung cancer-related mediastinal/hilar lymph node metastasis before endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic value of CT features and histogram analysis in distinguishing between malignant and benign mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodThis retrospective study analyzed non-contrast chest CT images from 40 NSCLC patients, comprising 80 pathology-proven mediastinal lymph nodes (46 benign, 34 metastasis). Morphologic features, including size, shape, margins, and internal composition, were independently assessed by two radiologists. Histogram analysis was conducted using the Synapse Vincent system with six parameters: mean attenuation, mean positive pixel (MPP), standard deviation (SD), skewness, kurtosis, and entropy. Statistical analysis included the Mann-Whitney test for continuous data, Fisher's exact test for categorical data, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to assess diagnostic accuracy, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsMalignant lymph nodes demonstrated significantly larger sizes (p < 0.001), ill-defined margins (p = 0.024), irregular shapes (p < 0.001), and the presence of necrotic areas (p < 0.001). A nodal size cutoff of 13.0 mm and volume of 1.632 ml were strongly associated with malignancy, yielding high diagnostic accuracy with sensitivities of 70.6% and 73.5% and specificities of 95.7% and 87.0%, respectively. Significant differences were observed between benign and malignant lymph nodes in several CT histogram parameters, including mean attenuation (p = 0.004), skewness (p = 0.041), kurtosis (p = 0.005), and entropy (p < 0.001). The integrating all CT histogram parameters yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.870 for differentiating between benign and malignant lymph nodes.
conclusionThe combination of morphologic CT features and CT histogram analysis offers a robust method for differentiating malignant from benign mediastinal lymph nodes in NSCLC patients, potentially enhancing diagnostic accuracy and informing treatment strategies.
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.