ArticleCurrent medical imaging2025
Prevalence and Determinants of the Pool Sign in Lung Cancer Patients with Brain Metastasis.
Article in Current medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe pool sign, an emerging MRI biomarker for differentiating brain metastases (BM) from primary neoplasms, is primarily documented in case reports. Systematic data on its prevalence and determinants in BM among patients with lung cancer are lacking. This study aims to evaluate the occurrence of the pool sign and identify factors associated with its presence. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween January 2017 and August 2024, data from 6,004 lung cancer patients were retrospectively extracted from the electronic health records system. The clinical and demographic characteristics, along with BM MRI features, were compared between the pool sign and non-pool sign groups using univariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsA total of 427 patients (81 women; mean age, 62.17 years) were enrolled in the study. The pool sign was observed in 29 patients (6.8%). The interreader reliability for the pool sign ranged from moderate to substantial (κ=0.61-0.80), while the intra-reader reliability was moderate (κ=0.6). In the univariate analysis, a statistically significant difference was observed in the volume size of metastases between the pool sign group and the non-pool sign group (median 4.8 vs. 0.5, P < 0.0001). This finding suggests that the presence of the pool sign is more likely associated with BMs exhibiting relatively larger tumor volumes. Additionally, the prevalence of solid-cystic masses was significantly higher in the pool sign group compared to the non-pool sign group, with rates of 79.3% and 44.5%, respectively (P = 0.0014). However, there were no statistically significant differences in other examined variables. In the multivariate analysis, the findings demonstrated that an increase in tumor volume (OR = 1.050, 95% CI 1.025-1.076, P < 0.001) and the presence of a solid-cystic mass (OR = 3.666, 95% CI 1.159-11.595, P = 0.027) were significantly correlated with a higher probability of pool sign occurrence.
conclusionThe pool sign occurs in 6.8% of BM in patients with lung cancer and is independently associated with larger lesion volume and solid-cystic morphology. Its diagnostic utility warrants further validation.
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.