ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Comparative validation of clinical staging based on solid component versus total tumor size in resected lung adenocarcinoma.
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.
- Is the consolidation-to-tumor ratio an independent prognostic factor in clinical T1 stage lung adenocarcinoma radiologically manifesting as a subsolid nodule?-a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided detection (CAD)-derived solid component proportion and mean CT attenuation for predicting invasiveness in pulmonary part-solid nodules: a retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare clinical staging based on total tumor size with that of solid component size using the same criteria. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent curative resection for clinical stage IA1-IB adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively included. Patients were re-staged according to the criteria of the current TNM staging using total tumor size (cStage
resultsA total of 4680 patients were included. From cStage
conclusionUsing the same size criteria, clinical staging based on solid component size provides enhanced performance and correlation with pathologic risk factors compared to total tumor size. KEY POINTS: Question A direct comparative validation of clinical staging based on solid component size versus total tumor size under the same criteria has not been conducted. Findings Correlation with pathologic risk factors and lymph node metastasis, especially pN2, was stronger in clinical staging based on solid component. Clinical relevance It is reasonable for future revisions to be based on the current scheme using solid component size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40411551What 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.