ArticleScientific reports2025
Innovative diagnostic approaches for lung cancer: integrating traditional cytology with qPCR for rapid and reliable results.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To address inherent limitations of standard diagnostic procedures for lung cancer, like long turn-around-time and the need for sufficient samples for analysis, we innovatively integrated traditional smear cytology (TSC) with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays on micro cell samples (MCSs) for the diagnosis of lung cancer. All patients underwent TSC and qPCR assays targeting 11 genes based on different MCSs, including samples obtained by flushing needles used for endobronchial ultrasound biopsies and percutaneous aspiration biopsies of lung in 38 cases (G1) and 108 cases (G2), and lavage fluid samples obtained by bronchoalveolar lavage in 38 cases (G3). With clinical diagnosis and pathological biopsy as diagnostic gold standard, the diagnostic value of these MCSs were explored. In G1, G2 and G3, the diagnostic yield of MCSs-based TSC alone was 78.9%, 93.5% and 76.3%, respectively. Combination of TSC and genetic testing increased the diagnostic yield to 81.6%, 98.1% and 84.2% in G1, G2 and G3, respectively. In addition, the qPCR results of MCSs and paired tissue samples was all matched with a concordance rate of 100%, and the quantity of DNA extracted from our samples was significantly higher than that of tissue samples in G1 and G2. Notably, the TAT of our diagnostic method required only 24 h, which greatly improved the timeliness of diagnosis. Our study demonstrated that MCSs-based TSC combined with genetic testing could not only rapidly and reliably diagnose lung cancer, but also effectively detect gene targets, with potential for widespread application.
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.