ReviewTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2025
The IASLC uncertain resection, general overview, current evidence, and future prospects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inconsistent definitions of radical resection in perioperative trials of non-small cell lung cancer: a scoping review.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- Tumor stage, squamous histology and male sex predict positive resection margins in non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing anatomical resection-a retrospective study from a high-volume thoracic surgery unit.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Introduced by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) in 2005, uncertain resection (Run) categorizes a new subclass of residual tumor. Despite several studies, the prognostic significance of Run in operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains unclear. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the prognostic influence of Run in operable NSCLC, focusing on the impact of the four elements that comprise R descriptors on patient survival. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to synthesize data from relevant clinical studies. Methods: We developed search strategies to identify relevant clinical studies across databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang up to June 2024. Quantitative analysis was performed with Stata 15 to investigate the prognostic influence of Run, the extent of mediastinal lymph node removal, and the highest mediastinal lymph node involvement (HMLI). We also summarized the main findings from studies on pleural lavage cytology (PLC) and carcinoma in situ in operable NSCLC. Results: Compared to complete resection, Run-associated patients exhibited inferior 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS; risk ratio (RR) = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-1.44; RR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.28-1.60). Limited lymphadenectomy (L-LA) in cI stage showed similar survival benefit (OS, RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.06; DFS, RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.97-1.15), in contrast with systematic lymph node dissection (SLND). For pN2-III patients, HMLI indicated poorer OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.22, 95% CI 1.14-1.31) and DFS (HR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.36). Conclusion: IASLC's residual tumor classification correlated with significant survival differences. Compared with R0, Run was associated with inferior 5-year OS and DFS. L-LA seemed to provide equivalent survival benefits, in contrast to SLND. For patients with low invasiveness in stage cI, L-LA could be considered as a preferred option. HMLI predicts poorer survival in pN2-III patients, and positive PLC significantly worsened long-term survival in operable NSCLC, particularly at early stage.
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.