ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025
Early compliance with lung cancer lymph node standard 5.8: An analysis of 2022 and 2023 Commission on Cancer site reviews.
Article in The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing phantom lymph node collection during curative-intent resection of non-small cell lung cancer.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- What affects adequate lymph node harvest in pulmonary resections?-assessment of compliance with a national quality standard.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Outcomes Linked to 3N2+1N1 Sampling by Surgery Type: A Commission on Cancer Lung Cancer Quality Metric.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
- Optimizing Lymph Node Staging in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Surgery: Evidence, Guidelines, and Quality Improvement Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Perspectives on Commission on Cancer Standard 5.8 on Lung Cancer: A Qualitative Study.The Journal of surgical research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo address variability in nodal staging during curative-intent lung cancer resections, the Commission on Cancer implemented Standard 5.8 in 2021, requiring lymph nodes be sampled from ≥3 mediastinal stations and ≥1 hilar station and documented in a synoptic pathology report. We assessed compliance data from recent site reviews to evaluate the early implementation of Standard 5.8 through a federally funded collaborative.
methodsHospital compliance rates with Standard 5.8 were extracted from a repository of site reviewers' documentation of Commission on Cancer site visits performed during 2022 and 2023. Each review included up to 7 randomly selected pathology reports eligible for the standard. For a site to be compliant, 5 of 7 pathology reports reviewed in 2022 must have met Standard 5.8, which increased to 6 of 7 reports in 2023 and beyond.
resultsOverall, 652 site visits occurred in 2022 and 2023. Sites without eligible cases (n = 148 [23%]) were excluded. Among 504 eligible sites, 272 (54%) were found compliant, and 232 (46%) were found noncompliant. Of noncompliant sites, the median percentage of pathology reports meeting the standard was 29%. From 2022 to 2023, the median percentage of adherent pathology reports increased; however, overall compliance rates dipped in 2023 as the threshold needed for site compliance rose.
conclusionsWith almost half of Commission on Cancer-accredited sites noncompliant, there is a real opportunity to improve the quality of surgical lymph node evaluations. This aligns with growing efforts to support hospitals and surgeons with quality improvement tools and resources for Standard 5.8.
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.